DIAL SINGH Vs. UTTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he, his co-plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the heirs and owners of the suit land in equal shares and sought injunction restarting the defendants from taking forcible possession from the plaintiffs without getting the land partitioned. It was alleged that Pokhar Singh, father of the plaintiffs, was owner of the suit land, he having purchased the same under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act under the order dated 31.8.1971 and 30.5.1967 of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Fazilka and he died on 26/27.9.1975; the defendants were claiming that they were exclusive owners of the property in their possession and will take forcible possession of the land in dispute from the plaintiffs. The defendants contested the suit and set up exclusive title to the land in their possession i.e. 11 kanal 10 marla.

(2.) The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. It was held that out of total land in dispute i.e., 33 kanal 10 marla, 22 kanal of land was recorded in the name of Pokhar Singh deceased and in respect of that land a mutation was sanctioned showing the parties to be owner in equal shares, but in respect of 11 kanal 10-M of land, it was held that Pokhar Singh did not require many title, as neither he was recorded as owner in the jamabandi, which recorded the Central Government to be the owner nor the purchase by Pokhar Singh from Shakuntla Devi could be taken cognizance of the allotment by the Central Government in favour of Shakuntla Devi had been cancelled as per the note to that effect in jamabandi, Ex. D-1.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant continued that the lower appellate Court was in error in interfering with the view taken by the trial Courts, as the cancellation of allotment in favour of Shakuntla Devi, even if proved could not affect the inter se right of the parties, who derived their right from Pokhar Singh. I find merit in this contention. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and decree of the lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.