LAWS(P&H)-1971-8-63

JASWANT RAI Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

Decided On August 31, 1971
JASWANT RAI Appellant
V/S
BHAGWAN DASS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this second appeal relates to agricultural land, measuring 15 Bighas and 9 Biswas, situated in Malerkotla. Nawab of Malerkotla was the owner of this land, Mohammad Khalil its occupancy tenant, while Achhru Ram and his two brothers Jaswant Rai and Sushil Kumar its Dakhilkars. In 1952, Bhagwan Dass took this land on lease for five years from 1952 to 1957 from Mohammad Khalil and agreed to pay him Rs. 100/- per annum as Theka and Rs. 450/- yearly as batai to the Dakhilkars. In 1953, the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act, came into force and on its basis Mohammad Khalil became the owner of this land. According to Bhagwan Dass, Mohammad Khalil went to Pakistan in 1956, while according to the Dakhilkars, he died in that year. A report was then made to the Patwari by the Dakhilkars saying that the property be mutated in their names, Mohammad Khalil having died leaving no heirs. The said property was accordingly mutated in their favour. In January, 1961, Bhagwan Dass brought a suit, out of which the present second appeal has arisen, for a declaration that the Dakhilkars were not entitled to receive any batai from him, because they had no concern with the land in dispute, after Mohammad Khalil had become its owner under the Act and further that he was not a tenant under the Dakhilkars and the entries in the revenue records to that effect were incorrect.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the Dakhilkars. They pleaded that after the death of Mohammad Khalil, they had become the occupancy tenants of the land and under the provisions of the Act, it were they, who had become its owners and not Mohammad Khalil.

(3.) The trial Court decreed the suit, holding that Mohammad Khalil was the occupancy tenant of the land before the coming into force of the Act and he became the full owner thereof after its enforcement and the Dakhilkars lost all their rights in the same.