GOKAL Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE BALSMAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal by three out of the four plaintiffs as appellants, challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, maintaining that of the trial Court, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed as being not maintainable in the Civil Courts.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffs claimed to have cultivated different parts of Shamlat Deh land, which stood vested in the Gram Panchayat. It was claimed that the rate of rent was Rs. 5/- per acre and that they had paid up the arrears of rent. Making grouse that different amounts, allegedly due from the plaintiffs as rent were being recovered as arrears of land revenue by the Gram Panchayat through the instrumentality of the revenue authorities, they filed the present suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants to recover the amount in question, as it was not due from them. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, which was not denied by the defendant, the four plaintiffs, namely, Gokal, Chuni, Molu and Jaswant has been assigned different sums of money which totalled up to Rs. 2,644.97. A sum of Rs. 445/- out of the same was due from Jaswant plaintiff. It is separately being mentioned here as it has relevancy in a subsequent part of the judgment. The defendants raised a number of pleas giving rise to issues with regard to the jurisdiction and the maintainability of the suit and on merits as well. The trial Court treating two issues as preliminary, as to whether the suit was maintainable in the present form and whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit vide its order dated September 15, 1965, held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit as it was a suit not falling under Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. However, the issue about the maintainability of the suit in the present form was kept to be decided along with other issues on merits. Later when evidence by the parties was concluded, the trial Court held that the suit in the present form was not maintainable in view of Section 158(2)(xiv) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, vide its final judgment dated August 22, 1966, and yet left issues on merits undecided (issue Nos. 2 to 5). Contrary to what it had proposed to do earlier, vide order dated September 15, 1965, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the preliminary objection. The unsuccessful plaintiffs' appeal before the lower appellate Court too was dismissed on the same premises vide order dated May 20, 1968. Only three of the plaintiffs, namely, Gokal, Chuni and Molu filed the present appeal in this Court, impleading the Gram Panchayat and their fourth co-plaintiff Jaswant as respondents. Jaswant was reportedly dead even before the lower appellate Court and his sons Phula and Sohlu stood impleaded as his legal representatives on record. The learned counsel for the appellants was apprised of Jaswant's demise, but it appears that no steps were taken to rectify the mistake or to add as parties his legal representatives at any time till the matter has come up for consideration.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appeal was neither properly constituted nor was maintainable. According to him, when one of the plaintiffs was not even made a party to the appeal, the frame of the appeal was improper and hence relief could be granted to the present appellants. I find no merit in the contention raised, because separate identifiable sums were sought to be recovered from the plaintiffs and as said earlier Jaswant deceased plaintiff's interest, like the other plaintiffs, was clearly separable. For this cause of action even four suits could have been filed. The severability of the sums is not even disputed by the defendant-Panchayat. The appeal could well be maintained by the three surviving plaintiff-appellants vis-a-vis the sums which are sought to be recovered from them, to the exclusion of Jaswant deceased plaintiff. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is thus repelled in this light.