2 to 8, as legal heirs of one Bhagwana, filed a suit for possession asserting that they were owners in possession of land measuring 3 Bighas 11 Biswas companyprising in Khasra No.9/19 and land measuring 1 Bigha 16 Signature Not Verified Biswas companyprising in Khasra No.
9/20/2, in total measuring 2 Bighas 15 Biswas was taken on lease for 20 years companymencing from 23 rd September, 1954 till 22nd September, 1974 on payment of Rs.235/ per year by Jagdish Prasad, the defendant.
That the said Shri Nand Ram and Shri Bhagwana leased out land measuring 1 bigha 19 biswa out of Khasra No.
The respondent defendant claimed share in the companypensation for 2 Bighas 15 Biswas of land on the ground that they were deprived of the right to retain possession of that land for the unexpired period of 14 years of the lease in their favour, which was for 20 years in total.
Whether the Jhugis on the land measuring 2 Bighas and 15 Biswas leased out in favour of Jagdish were built by Dharam Chand etc.
The learned First Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial companyrt.
The relevant paras from such claim petition filed by the defendant read as under That Shri Nand Ram and Shri Bhagwana sons of Lakhi Ram were the owners of land companyprised in Khasra Nos.9/19 and 9/20/2 situated at Mauza Tatarpur, Delhi State.
9/19 and 16 biswa out of Khasra No.9/20/2 to Shri Jagdish Prasad s o Shri Daurilal, resident of Tatarpur the claimant herein for a period of twenty years by lease deed dated 22.9.54 and registered on 11.10.54.
PW1/12 having been rendered by a companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction had returned a finding that the lease between the parties stood determined as rent since the last 12 months had number been paid by the appellant defendant.
It was agreed between the parties that it will number be open to the plaintiff lessor to seek ejectment of the defendant lessee from the leased premises, however, if the rent for one year remained in arrear, then the lessor would have the right to eject the lessee.
In such proceedings, three sets of claims were 1 for short, Act raised, one by the appellants as owners of the land, another by Ram Chand and Jagdish Prasad, as lessee of the land and certain other persons in occupation of the hutments on the land acquired.
9/20/2, total measuring 5 Bighas 7 Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date 2020.03.19 Biswas in the revenue estate of Village Tatarpur, Delhi.
9/19, measuring 1 Bigha 19 Biswas, i.e. the land leased that companytinued in possession with the defendant post the de numberification.
123017 IST Reason The land measuring 1 Bigha 19 Biswas out of Khasra No.
The numberice regarding termination of lease as well as the revenue record was produced to prove the ownership of the plaintiffs appellants.
The certified companyy of the original lease deed was produced as PW1/1 in respect of Khasra No.
Under clause 9 of the lease deed Ex.
The respondent was to prove his companytinuous, open and hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner for a companytinuous period of 12 years.
The learned trial companyrt decreed the suit after evidence was led by the parties.
It did number find any merit in the argument raised by the defendant that the award passed by the Reference Court Ex.
The relevant companyditions read as under Before the expiry of said lease it shall number be within the rights of the lessor i.e., party of the First Part to seek ejectment of party of the second part from the leased premises.
Further, that the plea of limitation was numberhing but an ingenuity of the companynsel for the defendant.
The respondent has number led any evidence of hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner at any time before or after the award of the reference Court number he has surrendered possession before asserting hostile, companytinuous and open title to the knowledge of the true owner.Thereafter, the defendant preferred a second appeal.
Such land, measuring 1 Bigha 19 Biswas companytinued to be in possession of the defendant lessee i.e. respondent herein.
9/19 and Khasra No.9/20.
Whether Nand Ram and Bhagwana have any lien on Rs.2263.20 for the structure belonging to Jagdish and Ram Chand.
The defendant respondent claimed apportionment of companypensation in lieu of his lease hold rights by raising a claim under Section 30 of the Act.
Since the tenancy was determined on 23th September, 1960, the suit filed on 13th March, 1981 was beyond the period of limitation.
Nand Ram as A.W.2 has state rent has number been paid to him for two years and that he served a numberice also on the lessee.
The respondent claimed adverse possession and claimed possession as owner against a person, who has inducted him as tenant.
PW1/12, Ex.
PW1/12 wherein the defendant respondent had claimed himself to be a tenant.
PW1/12 produced by the appellants operated as res judicata.
The suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 13 th March, 1981.
The First Appellate Court found that the plea of forfeiture was totally inconsistent and companytradictory to the averments made in the original statement.
A dispute arose with regard to apportionment of companypensation and the same was referred to the Reference Court.
The learned First Appellate Court did number permit the defendant to amend the written statement but the question of limitation was allowed to be raised on the basis of material available on record.
Reference to the numberice dated 13.9.1960 terminating the lease had also been made.
I decide this issue against Jagdish Prasad and Ram Chand.
9/19 and 16 Biswas out of Khasra No.
The High Court framed the following two substantial questions of law Whether the judgment rendered by the Land Acquisition Court on 21st August, 1961 Ex.
1 and plaintiff Nos.
A 3 in the proceedings before the Reference Court.
23 rd September, 1959 whereas the numberice is required to be served for at least 15 days time expiring on the last date of tenancy month.
The trial companyrt also referred to the award passed by the Reference Court Ex.
If the first question is answered in the negative, whether the suit filed by the Respondent for possession is barred by time?
In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was asserted that the land which was in possession of the defendant did number form a part of the alleged lease deed and that the defendant was in possession of this land in his own legal right.
The appellants plaintiff No.
If so, in what manner and to what extent?
at their own expenses and they are entitled to receive the companypensation in respect of their Jhuggis?
Thereafter, the plaintiffs served a numberice dated 12 th February, 1981 claiming possession of the land companyprising the aforementioned Khasra No.
