NAGINA SINGH Vs. GURDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gurdip Singh, Bhopinder Singh (both minors) sons of Charan Singh, Rajinder (minor) son of Jaspal Singh and Jit Singh son of Ram Singh, filed a suit on 26.4.1979 against Nagina Singh and Hazura Singh, in which Smt. Bhago was also impleaded as a defendant, for declaration that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land measuring 87 Kanals 3 Marlas as owners and that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are not the tenants on the land in dispute and the orders of the Collector, Patiala, dated 3rd September, 1974, and that of the Financial Commissioner dated 19th April, 1979, are illegal, void, ineffective and without jurisdiction and prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit-land on the basis of the said orders. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, was also filed for the grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs in pursuance of the orders of the Collector and the Financial Commissioner. The trial Court granted ex parte injunction on 26th April, 1979. During the pendency of the application for temporary injunction, Jit Singh died and in his place, Karnail Singh was brought on record. The temporary injunction application was opposed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and the trial Court by its detailed and well-reasoned order dated 16th January, 1980, vacated the ex parte injunction. The first three plaintiffs, who are minors and are represented through their fathers as guardians, filed an appeal which came up for decision before the Additional District Judge (I), Patiala, who by order dated 10th April, 1980, allowed the appeal and restrained defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land in dispute till the decision of the suit. Against the aforesaid order, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) In order to decide to this revision, it will be necessary to notice the relevant facts as stated by the plaintiffs in the plaint as also in the application for temporary injunction. It is alleged that Mst. Bhago, defendant No. 3, was owner in possession of the land in suit and she mortgaged the same with possession by registered mortgage deed in July, 1969 to Jaspal Singh (father of plaintiff No. 3), Charan Singh (father of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2), both of whom are brothers being sons of Bachan Singh; and Jit Singh son of Ram Singh, plaintiff No. 4, who had since died. On execution of the mortgage, it is alleged, that the possession was delivered by Smt. Bhago to the mortgagees and the mortgagees remained in its possession till March, 1977. It is then averred that on 4th March, 1977, Mst. Bhago sold the suit land to the plaintiffs by means of two registered sale deeds (Mark 'A' and 'B' on the record) and since the date of sale, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as owners.

(3.) It is then alleged in the plaint that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 wrongly alleged that they were tenant-at-will of Smt. Bhago in respect of the suit land and that they were wrongly dispossessed on 3rd June, 1971, by Hardial Singh, Jit Singh son of Ram Singh (plaintiff No. 4), Jaspal Singh (father of defendant No. 3) and Jiwan Singh son of Ram Singh. It is then stated that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application before the Collector under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for restoration of possession of the suit land against the aforementioned four persons, which was accepted on 30th September, 1974, vide order (copy Mark 'J') which on appeal was reversed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, vide order dated 19th April, 1979 (copy 'Mark E'), who restored the order of the Collector. Exactly a week after the order of the Financial Commissioner, the present suit and the application for temporary injunction were filed.