CHANNO Vs. JAGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision challenges a decree of dismissal of a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The suit had been instituted against 6 persons whom the plaintiff claimed had dispossessed illegally on 20.08.1998. The statement was filed by the respondents 1 to 6 contending that the property was a village common land and they have themselves no interest in the property and the suit itself should have been filed only against the village panchayat. During the course of the trial, the respondents had relied on D-1 and D-2 which showed that there were proceedings before the Additional Deputy Commissioner(Development)- cum-Collector, Panchayat Lands, Kapurthala. The judgment makes reference to a fact that the property in dispute is a common village well and a petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, had been dismissed and an appeal filed in the Court of Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, had also been dismissed. The Court found that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property and proceeded to dismiss the suit on a finding that the property had been established to be the village common land and the plaintiff has not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff is that in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the issue of title is irrelevant and all that has to be seen is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the property within six months prior to the institution of the suit and whether the dispossession has been occasioned otherwise than by due process of law. If both the ingredients are established, the plaintiff was entitled to be put back in possession of the property. The dismissal on the ground that the plaintiff had not established his title to the property and that the property belonged to the panchayat is, according to him, a irrelevant consideration.

(3.) I have no difficulty in accepting as a proposition of law that in proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the issue of title is irrelevant. I am hampered in my jurisdiction by the conduct of the plaintiff in not putting to Court any copy of the document which had been relied before the trial Court. The records have also not been summoned and a case which is now taken up after 6 years after the institution is required to be adjudicated with no records on my file. If the property has been taken possession of by resort to the provisions under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, the plaintiff could have no remedy before the Court or to complain that he was dispossessed otherwise than the process of law. If the dispossession has been occasioned in any other manner, then it was the duty of the Court to find whether the plaintiff had shown his possession within 6 months period prior to the date of institution. On an admitted plea that the property belonged to the village panchayat and the defendants were merely functionaries, it was imperative that the village panchayat itself had been has made a party. None of the respondents have defended themselves before this Court for the obvious reason that they have no private interest to defend. For a proper adjudication of the case, I direct impleadment of the Village Wadala Kalan, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, as the 7th respondent-defendant in the suit. The impleadment ordered by this Court shall be carried out by the trial Court on receipt of the record and the notice shall be issued to the 7th defendant. The Court below will undertake an enquiry on whether the dispossession as complained of by the plaintiff is established and whether the so-called dispossession has been occasioned by process otherwise than by law. The adjudication shall be made within a period of 4 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the records and after the due service of notice of the suit to the newly impleaded party.