COMMISSIONER JALANDHAR DIVISION Vs. MOHAN KRISHAN ABROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above civil appeals raise common question of law and fact and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts in Civil Appeal No. 1257 of 1999 are mentioned hereinbelow.

(2.) Late Sardarni Chanan Kaur widow of Sardar Triloki Nath Singh (deceased) was the owner of a kothi and lands admeasuring 90 kanals bearing khasra No. 4971 situated at Circular Road, Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the said property"). It is not in dispute that late Sardarni Chanan Kaur was the owner of the said property and that she had executed a registered will on 15-9-1962, whereby she bequeathed the said property to the State Government through Randhir Jagjit Hospital, Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to for short as "the said Hospital). The bequeath in respect of the said property was made vide paragraph 2 of the will which is reproduced herein below :-

(3.) In the will aforestated, the testatrix appointed three executors. On the basis of the above will, mutation No. 3597 was made on 20-4-1970 in favour of the said Hospital. On 15-6-1977, the said Hospital moved an application before the Collector, Kapurthala under Sections 4 and 5 of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1973 Act") for eviction of Mohan Krishan Abrol, respondent No. 1 herein, who was alleged to be an unauthorized occupant of the said property. In the meantime, the said respondent instituted a title suit on 2-11-1977 stating that the testatrix had executed a registered lease deed dated 7-6-1962 in his favour and he was the lessee in continuous possession and after the demise of the testatrix on 26-11-1962, he was a tenant in law and under her legal representatives. In the said suit, respondent No. 1 alleged that the State Government has no connection with the property in dispute as the will was not probated and had not been acted upon. In the said suit, respondent No. 1 herein sought a declaration that the State Government was not the owner of the said property. He also challenged the genuineness of the above will and prayed for perpetual injunction against the Government from taking possession of the said property under the provisions of the 1973 Act. In the said suit, the Government submitted that the proceedings for eviction of respondent No. 1 from the property were pending before the competent authority under the 1973 Act and, therefore, the suit was barred under Sections 10 and 15. It was also pleaded that respondent No. 1 herein had no locus standi to challenge its title as the said respondent was a lessee under the lease which stood expired on 7-6-1972.