GURDIAL SINGH Vs. BIRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming the decrees passed by the courts below decreeing a suit filed by the respondents against the appellants. The suit was for recovery of possession of a piece of land measuring 29 Kanals from the appellants. The allegations in the plaint were that the land originally belonged to one Atta Mohammed and others, that the respondents were occupancy tenants of the land; that by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act the respondents became the owners of the land and that since the appellants had taken forcible possession of the land in 1958 they were entitled to evict the appellants.

(2.) The appellants contended that they were the tenants of the land and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) The trial court accepted the contention of the appellants and directed the return of the plaint to the respondents for presentation to the Revenue Court. Against this judgment, the respondents appealed to the learned Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana who remanded the case to the trial court for decision of the case on merits. The appellants filed a second appeal and the same was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. By his judgment he directed the trial court to find whether the appellants were trespassers or tenants and in case they were found to be trespassers, the trial court will have jurisdiction to pass a decree against them, but in case they were found to be tenants, the suit will have to be dismissed. Thereafter the appellants applied before the trial court for amendment of the written statement on the basis that they had become the occupancy tenants of the land by adverse possession against the original proprietors and had become owners of it under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act and that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court allowed the amendment and framed issues on the basis of the contentions in the amended written statement. The trial court found that the respondents were the occupancy tenants of the land and that the appellants had not become the owners of the land by adverse possession and that the suit was not barred by limitation. The court, therefore, decreed the suit.