MANI SINGH HARNAM SINGH Vs. SHER SINGHSHIBHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jullundur, dismissing his appeal and after allowing cross- objections filed by the defendants dismissing the plaintiff's suit in its entirety.

(2.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff Mani Singh in August 1954 for a declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of one- third share in the land allotted in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and that he was entitled to claim possession thereof. Defendant No. 3 was the Additional Custodian Rehabilitation (Rural), Punjab. According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff claimed to be the co-purchaser with the defendants 1 and 2 of some land situated in Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur, now in Pakistan, by means of an auction held in July 1945. The plaintiff claimed to be the co-owner of that land to the extent of one-third share, of which he claims to have obtained actual cultivating possession. He has further asserted that the proprietary rights of the said land were obtained by defendants 1 and 2 but before his, share could be transferred in his name, partition of the country occurred and the parties migrated to India. Defendants 1 and 2 were, according to the plaintiffs version, allotted some land in India in lieu of the aforesaid land left in Pakistan. The plaintiff has however not been allotted any land although he was co-owner to the extent of one-third share of the land left by Mm and defendants 1 and 2. He has further alleged that he duly applied to the Director-General, Rehabilitation, Jullundur, asking for his one-third share in the aforesaid land left in Pakistan and claiming allotment in proportion to his share but in September 1951 his prayer was disallowed. Revision against the said order was also dismissed in May 1952 and a further revision met similar fate at the hands of the Custodian-General in April 1953. The plaintiff has averred that defendants 1 and 2 have in spite of repeated requests refused to recognise his (the plaintiff's) right in the land allotted to them. Basing his terminus-a-quo on the order of the Custodian-General, dated the 21st April 1953, the plaintiff, as already observed, has claimed a declaratory decree that he is the owner of one-third share in the land allotted to each one of the defendants 1 and 2, and that he is entitled to claim possession of his share.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the land described in the plaint has not been purchased by them jointly with the plaintiff and that the land which is the subject- matter of the suit had not been allotted in lieu thereof. The trial Court partly decreed the plaintiffs suit by granting him a declaration in the terms prayed, with respect to the land allotted to Chanan Singh defendant No. 2. In so far as Sher Singh defendant No. 1 is concerned, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the khasra numbers specified in the plaint, as having been allotted to him, were not proved to have been so allotted in lieu of the land described in para 1 of the plaint of which the plaintiff claimed to be the co-owner.