DHARAM DEV Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision and has been directed against the order dated 12.1.1999, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, who, allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner. One Shri Durga Ram was the owner of the property. He executed a mortgage in relation to that land in the year 1938 in favour of Sunder Dass and Udey Ram for a consideration of Rs. 800/-. Later on Shri Durga Ram executed a sale deed in favour of the mortgagees for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. Resultantly, Shri Sunder Dass and Udey Ram became the owners of the property. The sale was for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The co-sharers of the land which was sold by Shri Durga Ram filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. That suit was decreed in the year 2000 Bikrami equivalent to 31.3.1943. The case set up by the defendant-petitioner is that Rs. 2,000/- has been deposited and by virtue of that deposit they had become the owners of the property in view of the decree. S/Shri Amar Nath and Gainda Ram were co-sharers. They have filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. Thereafter, the heirs of Sunder Dass alias Shankar Dass and Udey Ram filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners of the property because the property was not redeemed by Shri Durga Ram within the stipulated period of 30 years. The defendant-petitioners took the stand that they have become the owners of the property by virtue of the decree dated 31.3.1943 on deposit of Rs. 2,000/- and there is a prima facie proof with regard to the payment of Rs. 2,000/- in the revenue record to this effect. The defendant- petitioners have also filed a separate suit that they are owners of the property on the strength of the decree dated 31.3.1943. That suit is pending. The heirs of S/Shri Shankar Dass alias Sunder Dass and Udey Ram filed the present suit for declaration that they are the owners of the property by virtue of the sale in favour of Shri Shankar Dass and Udey Ram. During the pendency of the suit they filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. praying in the alternative that the decree dated 31.3.1943 allegedly obtained by Shri Amar Nath and Ganda Ram, is illegal because the decree-holders had not deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in pursuance of that decree. This application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was allowed by the trial Court for the reasons given in para Nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned order which can be quoted in the following manner :-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.