JOGINDER NATH ALIAS JOGINDER PAL Vs. SAT PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. RSA No.4167 of 2003 and RSA No.4168 of 2003, both filed by Joginder Nath alias Joginder Pal defendant No. 1 against same judgments and decrees of the lower courts.

(2.) Respondents are plaintiffs or successors-in-interest of some of the plaintiffs since deceased. The plaintiffs filed suit alleging that during consolidation of holdings which took place in the year 1953, suit land measuring 67 kanals 11 marlas was allotted to Manohar Lal, Chaman Lal and Vishwa Mitter (hereinafter referred to as the original allottees). They became owners in possession of the suit land. They sold the suit land to plaintiff No. 10 Sat Pal and proforma defendant No. 2 Dharam Pal vide registered sale deed dated 16.06.1959. Accordingly, plaintiff No. 10 and defendant No. 2 became owners in possession of the suit land. They partitioned the suit land among themselves. Plaintiff No. 10 sold 15 kanals 7 marlas of land out of it to plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Harbans Singh and Mohinder Kaur vide sale deed dated 09.08.1971 and accordingly they are owners in possession thereof. Defendant No. 2 sold 28 kanalas 15 marlas land to Rajinder Kaur (predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff Nos.3 to 9) vide sale deed dated 09.06.1976 and accordingly plaintiff Nos.3 to 9 are owners in possession of the said land. Plaintiff No. 10 is owner in possession of 8 kanals 13 marlas left with him as exclusive owner.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 filed application on 20.01.1979 under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (in short, the CH Act) alleging that he was allotted less land in repartition scheme during consolidation of holdings. Director, Consolidation of Holdings vide order dated 17.03.1979, Ex.P4 modified the scheme of partition and gave the suit land to defendant No. 1. The said order has been challenged in the suit being null and void and against principles of natural justice. Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 9 and their predecessors-in-interest were not party to the application before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings and they are bona fide purchasers of the suit land. Application under section 42 of the CH Act filed by defendant No. 1 was hopelessly barred by limitation. Plaintiffs accordingly sought declaration that they are owners in possession of their respective lands i.e. plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 of land measuring 14 kanals 5 marlas; plaintiff Nos. 3 to 9 of land measuring 28 kanals 15 marlas and plaintiff No. 10 of land measuring 8 kanals 13 marlas and that order Ex.P4 passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings is null and void.