MEHAR SINGH Vs. KASTURI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Kasturi Lal instituted two separate suits for possession of two separate pieces of lands situated in villages Mehlan and Mauran respectively against Bishan Singh and Bishan Singh's sons respectively. In both suits a claim for recovery of certain amounts as mesne profits was included. These suits were filed in the Court of Sub-Judge, 2nd Class, Sangrur. Both the suits were decreed on 10-5-1948. Both these villages at the time or the suits and of the decrees fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Judge, 2nd Class, Sangrur. On formation of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union in 1948 there was a readjustment of the boundaries of the various tehsils of the Sangrur district and these villages were attached to Sunam tehsil under Government notification with the consequence that these villages ceased to be within the territorial jurisdiction of Sangrur Courts and feel within the territorial jurisdiction of Sunam Courts. After these changes the decree-holder filed two separate applications for execution of these decrees in the Sunam Court. The judgment-debtors pleaded that the Sunam Court had no jurisdiction to execute these decrees and that the proper Court for the purpose was the Sangrur Court. This plea prevailed in the Executing Court of Sunam and the decree-holder's appeals were dismissed by the District Judge. The learned Single Judge of this Court, however, accepted the decree-holder's second appeals and held that the Sunam Court had jurisdiction to execute these decrees. With his leave the judgment-debtors filed two Letters Patent appeals (Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 14 and 17 of 1958) under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. When these Letters Patent appeals came up before the Division Bench of which I was a member we decided to refer the same to a larger Bench in view of conflicting decisions in the various High Courts. These appeals have now been placed before us for decision and it will be convenient to decide both of them by this judgment.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the judgment-debtors first contended that in spite of redistribution of boundaries the Sangrur Courts continued to have territorial jurisdiction over these villages. We did not permit him to raise this new case at the stage of Letters Patent appeals as it is directly opposed to their case as placed before all the Courts till now and as it involved enquiries into the various relevant notifications which I may say could not be brought to our notice because they were not available. In spite of adjournment the learned counsel for both the parties were unable to produce the Government notification by which these villages were removed from the Sangrur tehsil and were included in the Sunam tehsil. These appeals, therefore, must be decided on the basis of the fact that these villages fell outside the territorial jurisdiction of Sangrur Courts.

(3.) IT was conceded by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtors that the decree for mesne profits could be executed only by the Court that had territorial jurisdiction to execute the decree for delivery of the lands in suit to the decree-holder probably on the basis of Se. 16, Civil Procedure Code. It is, therefore, not necessary to discuss this aspect of the matter and we take it that the entire subject-matter of both the decrees fell wholly outside the jurisdiction of Sangrur Courts and fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Sunam Courts.