Kuldip Singh, J. (Oral)
CM No. 1015-C of 2014
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 445 days in filing the present appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by the affidavit of the appellant No. 1, the delay of 445 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
3. Application is accordingly disposed of.
Main case
4. Impugned in the present regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2012, passed by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, affirming the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2008, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs, was dismissed with cost.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have also carefully gone through the file.
6. It comes out that the plaintiff No. 1 (appellant No. 1 herein) had sought declaration to the effect that he is in cultivating possession of land measuring 16 kanals 15 marlas, situated in village Bodal HB No. 93, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, comprising in khasra numbers, as mentioned in the head note of the plaint. He also claimed that he is in hostile possession of the suit land and that the Central Government (defendant) should not interfere in his possession, except to receive of mortgage charge amount of Rs. 900/-, if the same are proved.
7. The lower Court has recorded the finding that the plaintiff No. 1 has failed to prove his ownership. He has also failed to prove his hostile possession. He is recorded as a tenant and once he is a tenant, he is always a tenant. Further finding was recorded that the jurisdiction of civil court is barred under Section 16 of the Punjab Package Deal Proprietors (Disposal) Act, 1976.
8. After going through the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, I am of the view that it is not the case of the plaintiffs that at any point of time, the land was mortgaged with the Central Government and what was the purpose and the consideration for such mortgage. The plaintiff is recorded to be in possession as tenant. Therefore, he was rightly held to be tenant and a tenant cannot claim hostile possession against the owner. The findings of facts have been recorded by both the Courts below. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the present regular second appeal. Hence, the present regular second appeal is dismissed.
Comments