FAQIR SINGH Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MURTI Shri Dwarka Dheesh Ji Maharaj Brajman Mandir, defendant No. 4, is the owner of the land in dispute. In May 1960, it leased out this land to Chanan Singh for five years. Subsequently, this lease was extended by another three years, but before the expiry of the said lease, Channan Singh surrendered possession of half of the demised land in favour of defendant No. 4. In December, 1966, defendant No. 4 gave the land surrendered by Channan Singh on lease to Faquir Singh, plaintiff. It was also stipulated that he other land, which was with Chanan Singh and the lease regarding which had to expire in May 1968 would also be given to Faquir Sing. In October 1967, Chanan Singh died and after this death, his sons Gurbachan Singh, Ajmer Singh and Anoop Singh, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 according to Faquir Singh, in November, 1967, forcibly took possession of the land, which had been surrendered by their father Channan Singh and which had been given by defendant No. 4 to Faquir Singh. That led to the filing of the suit, out of which the present revision petition has arisen, by Faquir Singh against defendants Nos. 1 to 4, for possession of the said land and recovery of mesne profits thereof from November 1967 up to the date of the institution of the suit.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by defendants 1 to 3 on a number of pleas, but in the present revision petition, we are only concerned with one of them, namely, that a suit for mesne profits in respect of the land in suit did not lie in a Civil Court. On this plea on issue -

(3.) THE trial Judge was of the view that taking the averments of the plaintiff that he was a lessee under a valid lease-deed executed by defendant No. 4 in respect of the land in dispute and about which the mesne profits were claimed, his claim for mesne profits on the allegations that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were in occupation of the said land without his consent or that of defendant NO. 4 was covered by Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and as such, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the case. The learned Judge further observed that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by Section 77 (3) (n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, hereinafter called the Act.