CNR No.

HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:1:

IN THE COURT OF SUKHVEER KAUR, CIVIL JUDGE ([Link].), HISAR

(UID No.HR0629).

HRHS02001927-2018

Civil Suit No. : RBT-16-CS

CIS No. : CS-1412-2018
Presented on : 04.07.2018
Registered on : 04.07.2018/22.02.2024
Decided on : 23.07.2025

1. Hanuman,
2. Ramphal sons of Budh Ram son of Surja Ram,
3. Kamlesh daughter of Budh Ram, All residents of village Bheri Akbarpur, Tehsil
Uklana, District Hisar.
….Plaintiffs.

Versus

1. Chander son of Surja Ram,

2. Thandu Ram (Now deceased) son of Surja Ram through his Lrs:-
(i). Dalbir son of Chander, Resident of village Bheri Akbarpur, District Hisar.
3. Kalawati,
4. Savitri daughters of Surja Ram,
5. Suresh (Now deceased) son of Subhash through his Lrs:-
(i). Reshma, mother, (ii). Rajat, minor son of deceased Suresh.
6. Prabhu son of Subhash son of Surja, All residents of village Bheri Akbarpur,
Tehsil Uklana, District Hisar.
.…. Defendants.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION
&
PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Present : Sh. Parveen Siwach, Advocate for the plaintiff.

Sh. Pardeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate for defendants No.1, 2(i), 3,
5 (i), 5(ii) & 6.
Sh. B. L. Malik, Advocate for defendant No.4.

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:2:

JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 23.07.2025)

This is a suit for declaration & permanent injunction.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration to the effect

that plaintiffs are owners in possession as they have acquired occupancy rights qua

the agriculture land measuring 15 Kanal 11 Marla comprised in Khasra No.

20//20/2 (4-0), 34//4/1 (3-11), 5(8-0), comprised in Khewat No. 995//877, Khatoni

No.1311 (hereinafter referred as suit property), as per jamabandi for the year 2015-

16, situated at Village Bheri Akbarpur, Tehsil Uklana, District Hisar under Section

5 and 8 of The Punjab Tenancy Act and Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of

Proprietary Rights). Further, sought for consequential relief of permanent

(prohibitory) injunction restraining the defendants from forcibly and illegally

interfering and interrupting in the peaceful ownership cultivating possession of the

plaintiffs over the suit land or from dispossessing them from any part thereof and

also from causing any damage, destruction or changing the nature of the suit land

and further defendants be restrained from further selling, alienating, transferring or

encumbering any part or portion of the said land in favour of any persons, in any

manner.

The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are that plaintiffs have been

cultivating the suit land for the last more than 38 years as tenant on payment of

Batai Tihai Lagan and are in possession of suit land at the spot. That Budh Ram

father of the plaintiffs cultivating the suit land and reclaimed the land and made it

cultivable on the assurance of the defendants that he will never be ejected and

continue making the payment of lagan only and on the assurance of defendants

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:3:

Budh Ram (father of the plaintiffs) reclaimed the suit land and started cultivating

the said land and at that time the land was lying barren, unleveled and thorny

bushes were standing thereon. Budh Ram father of the plaintiffs reclaimed it by

spending huge amount and he started cultivating the same on the payment of Batai

Tihal. At that time there was paucity of tenants and after the death of Budh Ram

the plaintiffs started cultivating the land on the payment of Batal Tihal rent. It is

submitted that the plaintiffs have acquired occupancy rights under Section 5 and 8

of The Punjab Tenancy Act and has become owner of the same on account of

Punjab Occupancy Tenants (vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act. Further, during his

life time the said Budh Ram (the father of the plaintiffs) was executed a registered

Will No. 105 dated 20.10.2011 in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the suit

property. The defendants was asked several times to admit the rights of the

plaintiffs and to admit the plaintiffs to be owner of the suit property and to get the

revenue record corrected showing the plaintiffs as owner in possession of the suit

property but they have refused to do so. Hence, the present suit.

(3) Upon notice, separate written statement were filed on behalf of the

defendants No.1 to 3, 5 & 6 and 4, respectively wherein they opposed the suit by

taking preliminary objections as to the suit being false, frivolous and vexatious, the

plaintiff being estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct, the

plaintiffs having no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit, the

plaintiffs not having approached the Court with clean hands, the suit being

undervalued, the Civil Court having no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present

suit and the suit being not maintainable. It is submitted that Surja Ram was owner

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:4:

in possession of suit property i.e. 65 Kanal 8 Marla including the disputed property

also and now Surja Ram passed away. Surja Ram in his lifetime had given the suit

property i.e. 65 Kanal 8 Marla to his heirs except plaintiffs’ father Budhram

because Budhram father of plaintiffs was in bad habits. So Surja Ram had

transferred the suit property in favour of his legal heirs by way of court decree

dated 22.12.1992, in case No.943-C of 1992 and mutation of which was sanctioned

on 22.03.1993 and no land given to father of plaintiffs namely Budhram. It is

submitted that father of plaintiffs namely Budharan had challenged the abovesaid

decision in case No.943-C dated 22.12.1992 and mutation No.2585 dated

22.03.1993 in civil court which was rejected on 11.02.2002 by the court of Sh. N.

K. Singhal, Civil Judge, Hisar and in that case father of plaintiffs namely Budhram

registered himself as coparcenor in killa No.20//20/2(4-0)34//4/1(3-11). Thereafter,

father of plaintiffs filed an appeal of decision dated 11.02.2002, before District

Judge, Hisar and the same was decided on 10.06.2003 by the court of Sh.

Devender Singh Sheoran, Learned Additional District Judge, Hisar and accepted

the appeal and father of plaintiffs became the co-sharers of 1/6th share of the total

land of 65 Kanal 8 Marla. In this way, father of plaintiffs became co-owner of

1/6th share in the suit property. It is submitted that when father of the plaintiffs

Budhram died, then the 1/6th share of Budhram in the suit property i.e. 65 Kanal 8

Marla including the disputed land was transferred through mutation of inheritance

No.4272, dated 03.12.2013 in favour of plaintiffs, which also clearly proves that

the plaintiffs never used/cultivated the disputed land as gairmorusi. That partition

proceedings of the suit property i.e. 65 Kanal 8 Marla including the disputed land

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:5:

is pending before the Tehsildar, Uklana, and in which plaintiffs are respondents as

parties. Further submitted that even in the jamabandi, plaintiffs are owners. That

father of plaintiffs namely Budhram had executed a Will No. 105 dated 20.10.2011

in favour of plaintiffs and in that Will also number of disputed land was not

mentioned and on the basis of said Will, mutation No.4272 dated 03.12.2013 of

suit property i.e. 65 Kanal 8 Marla including 1/6th share in suit property (10 Kanal

18 Marla share), name of plaintiffs has been registered and sanctioned as owner

being co-sharer. It is submitted that plaintiffs have neither acquired any rights in

the suit property under Section 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act nor they have

declared gairmorusi through any court, rather plaintiffs are co-sharer of the suit

property with the defendants, therefore, plaintiffs have no right to correct the

revenue record as sought. Further submitted that the deceased Budhram had

executed a Will in favour of plaintiffs and on the basis of said Will, mutation

No.4272 dated 03.12.2013 was sanctioned and registered which was registered as

shareholder owner and there is no mention of the disputed land in the said Will. It

is submitted that son of Budhram namely Rajender is still alive and his name is not

recorded in the said Will and mutation. So, the plaintiffs have no right in the suit

property. The defendants further went on to deny all other averments made by the

plaintiff in his plaint. With these submissions, they prayed for the present suit to be

dismissed with costs.

(4) From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on

24.09.2021:-

1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:6:

in the head note of the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the consequential relief of permanent
injunction as prayed for in the head note of the plaint? OPP
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous vexatious and same
is liable to be dismissed? OPD
4. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD
5. Whether plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands and
suppressed the true and material facts from the court? OPD
6. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action and no locus standi to file
the present suit? OPD
7. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is bad on account of mis-joinder and
non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD
8. Whether plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by his
own act and conduct? OPD
9. Relief.

(5) In order to prove their case against the defendants, plaintiffs examined

the following witness(es):

Ashok Kumar, AWBN as PW1 who deposed to prove Will No.105

dated 20.10.2011 as Ex.P1.

Jaipal Singh, Patwari has been examined as PW2 who deposed to

prove jamabandi for year 2020-21 as Ex.P2, mutation No.4272 as Ex.P3.

PW3 Ramphal stepped into the witness box and furnished his affidavit

exhibit PW3/A in his examination in chief wherein he supported the case of

plaintiffs. He also identified his signature over Ex.P1.

Plaintiff No.1 Hanuman himself stepped into the witness box as PW4

and furnished his affidavit exhibit PW4/A in his examination in chief wherein he

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:7:

reiterated the version of the plaint.

(6) Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, plaintiffs furnished on record

the following documentary evidence:

Exhibit P1 Copy of Will No.105 dated 20.10.2011.

Exhibit P2 Certified copy of jamabandi for year 2020-21.
Exhibit P3 Certified coy of Mutation No.4272.
Exhibit P4-P5 Certified copy of jamabandi for year 2020-21.
Exhibit P6 Certified copy of jamabandi for year 2015-16.
Exhibit P7 Certified copy of jamabandi for year 2010-11.
Exhibit P8 Certified copy of jamabandi for year 2005-06.
Exhibit P9-10 Certified copy of khasra girdawari.
Exhibit P11 Certified copy of jamabandi for year 1980-81.
Exhibit P12 Certified copy of jamabandi for year 1985-86.
Exhibit P13 Certified copy of jamabandi for year 1995-96.
Exhibit P14 Certified copy of jamabandi for year 2000-01.
Exhibit P15-88 Payment receipts of sold crop in the name of Budhram.
Exhibit P89 Certified copy of death certificate of Budhram.

Thereafter, learned counsel for plaintiffs closed evidence vide his

separately recorded statement dated 07.02.2023.

(7) In order to rebut the case of the plaintiffs, the defendants have

examined the following witnesses:

Krishan Kumar, Clerk Sessions Record Room, Hisar as DW1 who

deposed to prove certified copy of judgment and decree sheet dated 10.06.2003

titled as Budh Ram Vs Chander & others as Ex.D1 and certified copy of judgment

dated 04.09.2015 in revision petition against order dated 05.08.2011 titled as Budh

Ram Vs Chander & others as Ex.D2.

Surender Singh, Record Keeper, DC office Hisar as DW2 (wrongly

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:8:

written as DW1) who deposed to prove documents Ex.D1 to D6.

Defender No.2 (i) Dalbir himself stepped into the witness box as DW3

(wrongly written as DW1) and furnished his affidavit exhibit DW1/A in his

examination in chief wherein he reiterated the version of the written statement.

(8) Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, the defendants furnished on

record the following documentary evidence:

Exhibit D1 Certified copy of judgment and decree sheet dated 10.06.2023 in case
titled as ‘Budh Ram Vs Chander & others’.
Exhibit D2 Certified copy of judgment dated 04.09.2025 in revision petition against
the order dated 05.08.2011 in case titled as ‘Budh Ram Vs Chander &
others’.
Exhibit D1 Certified copy of order dated 06.01.2009 passed by Assistant Collector
First Class, Hisar in case titled as ‘Budh Ram Vs Chander & others’.
Exhibit D2 Certified copy of application/appeal filed by Chander before Collector,
Hisar.
Exhibit D3 Certified copy of judgment/appeal dated 10.06.2003 in case titled as
‘Budh Ram Vs Chander & others’.
Exhibit D4 Certified copy of decree sheet dated 10.06.2003 in case titled as
‘Budh Ram Vs Chander & others’.
Exhibit D5 Certified copy of judgment dated 11.02.2002 in case titled as
‘Budh Ram Vs Chander & others’.
Exhibit D6 Certified copy of decree sheet dated 11.02.2002 in case titled as
‘Budh Ram Vs Chander & others’.
Exhibit D7 Copy of death certificate of Suman Devi.
Exhibit D8 Certified copy of death certificate of Pooja.
Exhibit D9 Certified copy of death certificate of Geeta.
Exhibit D10 Copy of death certificate of Suresh Kumar.
Exhibit D11 Copy of death certificate of Nisha.
Exhibit D12 Copy of death certificate of Rajni.
Exhibit D13 Certified copy of Will No.19 dated 27.10.1988.
Exhibit D14 Certified copy of mutation No.4740.

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:9:

Thereafter, evidence of defendants was closed by court order dated

12.12.2023.

(9) No evidence in rebuttal was furnished on behalf of the plaintiff and the

same was closed by learned counsel for the plaintiff vide his separately recorded

statement of even date.

(10) I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through

the contents of the case file carefully and minutely. My issue wise findings are as

under:

Issue Number 4:-

Whether suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form?

OPD

This issue is taken up first as it pertains to the jurisdiction and

maintainability of the present suit and learned counsel for the defendants raise the

issue of maintainability of the suit and argued on this issued in very detail.

The burden to prove this issue lies upon the defendants. The

defendants, through their counsel, raised a preliminary objection to the

maintainability of the suit, asserting that the same is barred under Section 10 of the

Punjab Tenancy Act, which expressly prohibits a co-sharer from claiming

occupancy rights under the said Act.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that plaintiffs are the

occupancy tenant under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, on the ground

that they are in possession of the suit land for more than 41 years and has been

cultivating it by paying batai tihai (share of produce) to the defendants. He also

seeks a consequential relief restraining the defendants from interfering in his

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:10:

peaceful possession and from alienating the suit property.

After hearing both the parties it is clear that both the parties are co-

sharer. This fact is also admitted by both the parties during argument. Therefore, as

far as maintainability of this suit is concerned Section 10 of the Punjab Tenancy act

is apt to be mentioned –

10. Right of Occupancy not to be acquired by joint owner in land held in

joint ownership – In the absence of a custom to the contrary no one of

several joint owners of land shall acquire a right of occupancy under this

Chapter in land jointly owned by them.

The plaintiffs have filed this suit under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab

Tenancy Act. However, Section 10 of the said Act clearly bars a co-sharer from

claiming the status of an occupancy tenant. The plaintiffs themselves have

admitted in their pleadings that they are co-sharer along with the defendants. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India once in judgment of Tara Chand and others versus

Gram Panchayat Jhupa khurd and others 2012(10) SCR 974 discussed, Limitation

on Occupancy Rights for Joint Owners under Punjab Tenancy Act. The Supreme

Court of India in this judgment delineates the boundaries of occupancy rights

under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, especially concerning joint landowners. This

case revolves around the appellants' quest to secure occupancy rights over disputed

land, which they occupied as co-sharers rather than tenants. The primary legal

contention was whether the appellants, recorded as joint owners (hissedars) in the

revenue records, could claim occupancy rights under Sections 5 and 8 of the

Tenancy Act. The Hon’ble Supreme court of India has discussed it as below:-

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:11:

“Legal Reasoning :-

The Court's reasoning hinged on the interpretation of statutory language

and the hierarchy of provisions within the Punjab Tenancy Act. The key

points include:

Section 10 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887: Clearly prohibits joint

owners from claiming occupancy rights, regardless of their possession

duration or rent payment.

Section 8 of the Tenancy Act: Although it mentions "any person" can

establish occupancy rights, the Court interpreted this in conjunction with

Section 10, limiting its applicability to tenants rather than joint owners.

Statutory Interpretation Principles: The Court adhered to the principle that

every word in a statute has significance and must be interpreted in context

to preserve the statute's purpose and prevent any provision from being

rendered redundant.

Impact of Revenue Records: The appellants were consistently recorded as

joint owners, reinforcing the application of Section 10 and negating any

tenancy relationship.

By systematically analyzing the statutory provisions and applying

established legal precedents, the Court concluded that the appellants could

not be granted occupancy rights due to their status as joint owners,

thereby upholding the lower courts' decisions.

Impact

this judgment reinforces the protective boundaries of the Punjab Tenancy

Act concerning joint landowners. It clarifies that mere possession and rent

payment do not suffice to establish tenancy when joint ownership exists.

The decision serves as a critical precedent for similar cases, ensuring that

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:12:

statutory interpretations align with legislative intent and that provisions

like Section 10 are strictly enforced to prevent misuse.”

As such, in light of the express bar contained in Section 10 of the

Punjab Tenancy Act and the plaintiffs’ own admission and in view of this

judgment, this court is of the view that the suit is not maintainable under the said

Act. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the defendants and against the

plaintiffs.

Issue No.1:-

Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for in the
head note of the plaint ? OPP
In view of the findings on Issue No.4, wherein the suit has been held to be

not maintainable under the Punjab Tenancy Act, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the

declaration that they are the occupancy tenant. Moreover, the plaintiffs have not

produced any evidence to support their claim of paying batai-tihai or cultivating

the land in a tenant-like capacity. Further, since the plaintiffs are co-sharers, there

are remedies available under other provisions of law, such as partition proceedings,

but not under the Punjab Tenancy Act. Hence, this issue is accordingly decided

against the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 2:-

Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the consequential relief of permanent injunction

as prayed for in the head note of the plaint? OPP

Since the main relief sought by the plaintiffs has been found to be not

maintainable, no consequential relief can be granted. When the principal relief

fails, the consequential relief automatically falls. Hence, this issue is also decided

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025
CNR No. HRHS020019272018 CS-1412-2018
Hanuman & others Vs Chander & others
:13:

against the plaintiffs.

Issues Nos.3 and 5 to 8 :

(11) The onus to prove these issues was on the defendants. However, these

issues were neither pressed during arguments nor has any evidence been led by the

defendants in this regard. Hence, these issues remained unpressed.

Issue No.9 (Relief)

(12) In view of findings returned on the above said issues, specially my

findings on issues No.1, 2 & 4, suit of the plaintiffs fails and is hereby dismissed

being not maintainable under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. No order as to costs.

Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record-room after due

compliance.

Pronounced in Open Court: (Sukhveer Kaur )

Dated:-23.07.2025. Civil Judge(Junior Division),
Hisar, UID [Link]-0629

Note:- All the pages of this judgment have been duly checked and signed by me.

(Sukhveer Kaur )
Dated:-23.07.2025 . Civil Judge(Junior Division),
Hisar, UID [Link]-0629
Ravi SG-III

(Sukhveer Kaur)
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
Hisar, 23.07.2025