SIRI KISHAN Vs. MEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a sale or any other alienation made during the currency of the consolidation, without obtaining permission of the Consolidation Officer, would be void between the parties to the transaction, in view of S. 30 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act. 1948, is the sole question of law of somewhat significant importance which arises in these two appeals, R. S. A. Nos. 822 and 823 of 1970.

(2.) MAM Chand was owner of certain agricultural land in village Badasa, tahsil Jhajjar, district Rohtak. In 1960, consolidation proceedings started in the village and the land held by Mam Chand was put in hotch-pot and during consolidation he was allotted 71 Kanals 10 Marlas comprised in Khasra Numbers detailed in para 1 of the plaints. After the allotment was made to him of the said 71 Kanals 10 Marlas, on 9th Oct, 1961, Mam Chand sold by two separate registered sale deeds for Rs. 10,000/- each, half of the land to Siri Kishan and others, plaintiffs in this appeal, and the balance half to Siri Raj and others, plaintiffs in R. S. A. No. 823 of 1970. Since the consolidation was going on, mutations with regard to the aforesaid sales were not sanctioned in favour of the vendees. In the year 1964, the notification of consolidation was revoked and thereafter a fresh notification was issued in the year 1966 for consolidation. In Pursuance of that, consolidation started in the year 1966. Since the name of Mam Chand continued in the revenue records to be the owner of 71 Kanals 10 Marlas, he was allotted 107 Kanals 13 Marlas, the detailed Killa numbers of which are stated in the body of the plaints, and possession was given to him. On 2nd Aug. 1967, the two sets of vendees of Mam Chand filed the present two suits for recovering possession in each for half of 107 Kanals 13 Marlas of land allotted during the consolidation to Mam Chand in lieu of 71 Kanals 10 Marlas of land which had been sold to them equal Shares. While Mam Chand defendant admitted that in lieu of 71 Kanals 10 Marlas, he was allotted 107 Kanals 13 Marlas during consolidation, he denied having made any sale to the plaintiffs and pleaded that he had executed lease deeds and the plaintiffs were his tenants and, as such, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try suits. The trial Court found, after evidence was led on the issues framed in the case, that the plaintiffs had proved the due execution of the sale deeds in their favour, the story of lease set up by the defendant was wholly untrue and as such the Civil Court had the jurisdiction. However, it found that both the sales were void in view of S. 30 of the E. P. H. (C. and P. of F. ). Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) and, therefore, dismissed the suits. The plaintiffs filed appeals which met with the same fate. The plaintiffs have come to this Court in these second appeals.

(3.) THESE appeals have to be decided on the findings of facts namely, that Mem Chand sold his entire land, 71 Kanals 10 Marlas, which was allotted to him during the first consolidation which started prior to the sales and which was revoked in the year 1964, i. e. after the sales were made and thereafter fresh consolidation started in the year 1966 during which 107 Kanals 13 Marlas of land allotted in lieu of the aforesaid hand. On these facts, I am of the opinion that, viewing the case from any angle, the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to the decrees for possession as prayed for against Mem Chand, defendant-respondent.