FATEH MOHAMMAD Vs. KHURSHEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Khursheed and others filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner restraining them from executing a decree passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nuh (for short the 'ACIG') on the broad allegations that they were in actual physical possession of the land in dispute for over 22 years and were thus, the owners in possession of the land. The petitioners later on instituted a suit in the court of A.C.I.G. under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act read with Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act on the ground that they were the small landowners and the respondents were tenants under them and, therefore, liable to be evicted under the provisions of Section 9(1) read with Section 14-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. In that suit the respondents denied that they were tenants on payment of batai and pleaded that rather they were the owners and in possession of the suit land. The A.C.I.G. after recording evidence and hearing the parties returned a finding that the respondents were the tenants on payment of 1/3rd batai and they were liable to be ejected. The judgment and decree passed by the A.C.I.G. has become final as no appeal or revision was preferred against that.

(2.) The respondents then filed a suit challenging the judgment and decree passed by the A.C.I.G. on the broad allegations that the jurisdiction of the revenue Court was ousted the moment the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. It was the further allegation of the respondents that the revenue Court could proceed with the matter where the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted but since it was denied the jurisdiction of the revenue Court was ousted.

(3.) The petitioners contested the suit pleading that the suit was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and that the respondents did not claim ownership of the land in question in the suit previously instituted regarding this very property and they were now estopped by their act and conduct to allege that they had become the owners by adverse possession. It was also averred by them that the parties to the suit were bound by the decree of the revenue Court and the execution thereof was not liable to be stayed.