KUNDAN LAL & ANR. versus KAMRUDDIN & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 01-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 11 S.C.R. 99 
KUNDAN LAL & ANR. 
v. 
KAMRUDDIN & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.6671 of2008) 
DECEMBER OJ, 2016 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND R. BANUMATID, JJ.) 
Possession: 
Illegal Possession - Respondent no. l filed suit for possession 
of property contending that he was a tenant under respondent no.21 
Punjab Wakf board - Case of respondent no.1 that few months 
after he became tenant, communal riots broke out and his family 
was forced to shift to another village and he too was out of station 
and that taking advantage of his absence, the appellants took illegal 
possession of the suit property - Plea of appellants nos. 1 & 2 that 
they took possession from one 'S' and respondent no.2 had also 
accepted appellants as its tenants - Courts below held that the suit 
property was never allotted to 'S' and appellants had failed to 
establish their possession over the suit property as the tenant - Suit 
was decreed in favour of respondent no.1 - On appeal, held: 
Respondent no.1 has produced receipts regarding payment of rent 
to re~pondent no.2 - On the other hand, receipts placed on record 
by the appellants related to a different property and were not 
connected to the suit property in question - Appellant accordingly 
has no right to claim the suit property - Therefore, appellants 
directed to vacate the suit premises within stipulated time frame. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: As seen from the judgments of the Courts below, 
the first respondent has produced receipts regarding payment of 
rent to respondent no.2,regarding Khasra No. 270 which are Ex. 
PW-2/2 to Ex. PW-10 and PW-5/1 to Ex. PW-5/3 and Ex. PW-6/1 
to Ex. PW-6/3. The contesting appellants/defendants have also 
placed on record receipts Ex. DW-3/1, and Ex. DW-5/1 to Ex. 
DW-5/4; Courts below held that Mark A clearly shows that the 
same related to property bearing Khasra No. 267 and in that way 
the same can not be connected to the suit land. Based on oral 
99 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 11 S.C.R. 
A and documentary evidence, the courts below have recorded 
concurrent findings of fact that the appellant is in possession and 
allotted different survey number in Khasra No. 267 and he has 
no right to claim the suit property. As prayed by the appellants, 
six months' time granted to vacate the suit premises, subject to 
B 
c 
undertaking stating that appellant shall not create any third party 
rights and will clear all the rent/dues/occupational charges to the 
Wakf Board in meanwhile and will peacefully vacate the suit 
premises concerned within the stipulated time frame positively. 
[Para 9, 11) [102-C-F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6671 
of2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03 .2007 of the High Court 
. of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 1412 of 2002. 
Suresh C. Gupta, Birendra Kumar Mishra, Kamal Mohan Gupta, 
D 
Ms. Poonam Atey, Advs. for the Appellants. 
E 
F 
·G 
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Jain, Naresh Kumar, 
Abinash Kumar Mishra, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao,Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises. out of the Judgment dated 16.03.2007 passed 
by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 1412 
of 2002 confirming the Judgment of the courts below wherein the 
appellants were directed to hand-over the possession of the suit property 
in question. 
3. Respondent/plaintiff Kamruddin filed the suit for possession of 
the suit property. Case of respondent/plaintiffs was that he became a 
tenant under respondent no. 2/Punjab WakfBoard@ Rs. 50/- per month 
since 01.04 .. 1990 over the suit property measuring 120 square yard in 
Khasra No. 270 more fully described in blue and red colour in the site 
plan attached with the plaint. Further, case of first respondent/plaintiff is 
that in the month of November 1990, when his family had shifted to 
village Sikarpur in the wake of riots in the Ramjanam Bhumi & Bahri 
Masj id and he was out of station on his truck, taking advantage of his 
absence the appellants have taken illegal possession of the suit property 
H and hence first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for vacant possession. 
KUNDAN LAL & ANR. v. KAMRUDDIN & ANR. 
[R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
4. The appellants/defendant nos. I and 2 contested the suit claiming 
that one Shivlal was in possession of the suit property as the said Shiv Jal 
had the property on lease from Punjab Wakf

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.