PREM CHAND Vs. SUSHILA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having lost in two rounds of litigation, the Plaintiff has approached this Court by preferring the present regular second appeal. Appellant-Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 64 Kanals 16 Marlas, the details and description whereof have been given in the head-note of the plaint. It was further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be granted restraining the Defendants not to dispossess the Appellant-Plaintiff from the suit land by way of execution of orders dated 6th September, 1991 and 7th October, 1991 passed by the Court of Assistant Collector (2nd Grade), Jagadhri under Section 14(A)(2) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Land Tenures Act').

(2.) It was pleaded in the suit that originally Juna and his brother were inducted as tenants in the suit land by the forefathers of Defendants on a promise that they would not be ejected from the land in dispute. It was stated that when the lease deed was given to the ancestors of Plaintiff, the land in dispute was full of shrubs and bushes, and due to the hard-work and labour put-in by the Plaintiff the same was made cultivable. It was further stated that in jamabandi for the year 1917-18 Juna has been shown in possession of the suit land. After the death of Juna, Chetu Ram came into possession of the suit land. It was further stated that there was an understanding between the landlord and tenants that they will not be ejected from the suit land by its owner. The ownership could not be conferred upon Chetu Ram due to his illiteracy, even though by passing of The Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Vesting Act'), he had become owner of the property.

(3.) This Court need not to give the detailed facts as it is admitted that due to non-payment of the rent, eviction of the Appellant from the suit land was ordered by the revenue authorities and those orders were upheld by this Court in CWP No. 1224 of 1999 vide an order dated August 3, 1999 and thereafter, the SLP filed against the order of this Court was also dismissed. Once the order of ejectment of the Appellant-Plaintiff has been upheld up to the level of Hon'ble the Apex Court, Appellant cannot say that execution proceedings be not carried and he be declared an owner in possession.