LAWS(P&H)-1970-11-18

ARJAN Vs. BALEY

Decided On November 25, 1970
ARJAN Appellant
V/S
BALEY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed five separate applications under Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (Punjab Act 10 of 1953) for the ejectment of defendants Ram Sarup and another, Net Ram, Mam Chand, Budhan and Arjan. The defendants, before the revenue Court, took up the objection that they were not the tenants and the revenue Court rejected the applications on the ground that since the question of title was involved in those applications it was not competent to decide and thereafter the plaintiff filed five separate suits being 465, 466, 467, 468 and 469 of 1968 against Ram Sarup and another, Net Ram, Mam Chand, Budhan and Arjan respectively regarding the land detailed in the plaint and sought its possession from the respective defendants on the ground that the plaintiff was the owner and the defendants were the trespassers on the land under their respective possession. The defendants resisted their respective suits and claimed to be the owners of the suit land under their respective possession. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in suit?

(2.) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(3.) Relief." Later on, the defendants sought permission to amend their written statements to seek additional issues, which permission was granted and consequently the following additional issues were framed by the trial Court: "2-A. Whether the defendant is a tenant on the suit land under the plaintiff? 2-B. Whether Civil Court has got no jurisdiction? 3-B. Whether the suit is not maintainable? 4-B. Whether the defendant is estopped from raising the plea mentioned in issue No. 2-A?" 2. It may be stated here that the trial Court consolidated all the suits, as the similar questions of law and facts were involved therein. 3. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was the owner of the land under possession of the defendants. It also held that the defendants had failed to prove themselves to be the tenants. It also gave a finding that the defendants had failed to prove themselves to be the owners by adverse possession and with these findings the trial Court decreed all the suits. Four defendants went up in separate appeals. Mam Chand defendant is suit No. 467 of 1968 not having filed the same. And the first appellate Court also disposed of all the four appeals 225/13, 226/13, 227/13 and 228/13 of 1969 by one judgment. It also concurred in the view of the trial Court and dismissed the appeals.