PHUMAN SINGH PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal from a decree-passed by the Additional District Judge Faridkot in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the property in suit. The plaintiff-respondent in this case is the Patiala and East Punjab States Union.

(2.) A suit had been instituted on 15th of March 1954 for possession of 258 Kanal's and 5 Marias of agricultural land in village Golewala and of 38 Kanals 9 Marias in village Kala Tola and of (7 Marias 5 Karams and 10 feet of residential site in village Golewala. The plaintiff had also included a prayer for the recovery of Rs. 11957-15-6 as mesne profits. The prayer of the plaintiff as to the mesne profits had been rejected by the trial Court and this matter is no longer in issue in the appeal.

(3.) Mst. Ruri, widow of Sunder Singh deceased occupancy tenant, had died on 8th Baisakh 1999 (April 1952). According to the plaintiffs allegations, she left no reversioner and the Raja of Faridkot, who was stated to be the Ala Malik of the land, had thus become the owner. It was also contended that under the rule of escheat the ruler of Faridkot had become entitled to the land, as besides being the landlord, he was also the Head of the Government and, therefore, repository of the sovereign rights; that on formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, the latter as the successor of the previous sovereign ruler had become the owner of the land in dispute. The above pleadings were traversed in the written statement. The defendant claimed to be a fifth degree collateral of Sunder Singh the deceased husband of Mst. Ruri. The Raja Sahib of Faridkot was admitted to be the Ala Malik but there was no right of escheat as the land in suit was his personal property. The trial Court had framed issues but later on an application was made for their amendment. The statement of the Government Pleader was recorded by way of further elucidation of the plaintiff's pleadings. He said, that the plaintiffs position was, that His Highness the Raja Sahib of Faridkot as the sovereign head of the former Faridkot State held the land in dispute which was his personal property. Sunder Singh, husband of Mst, Ruri, was holding the land as an occupancy tenant under the Faridkot State as such, and not under His Highness Raja Sahib of Faridkot in his personal capacity. The issues, as finally framed, are reproduced below :