MUNSHI Vs. DHANBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs have preferred the second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Patiala, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs brought the present suit for declaration to the effect that defendants No. 1 to 10 have no right, title or interest or share in the land measuring 324 bighas 15 biswas, details of which have been given in the heading of the plaint.

(2.) As per averments made in the plaint, Mehma Singh son of Kaka Singh was a big land-owner. He brought Attoo and Munshi plaintiffs and ancestors of other plaintiffs from Tehsil Naraingarh in Ambala District and settled them on his land as tenants. Attoo and Munshi plaintiffs and ancestors of other plaintiffs continued cultivating the land of Mehma Singh as occupancy tenants under him and had been paying 2/5th share of the produce to Mehma Singh. It was further pleaded that in the village, consolidation of holdings took place and in lieu of the land held by Mehma Singh, land measuring 324 bighas 15 biswas was carved out. Plaintiffs have further stated that on the promulgation of Ordinance No. XXIII of 2006 B.K. i.e. East Punjab States Union Abolition of Biswedari Ordinance of 2006 B.K., proprietary rights were conferred upon occupancy tenants under their tenancy and under the Ordinance occupancy tenants became owners of 3/4th of entire land and the share of the landlord remained only 1/4th. Plaintiffs have alleged that they not only became owners of 3/4th share but also became owner of 1/4th share of Mehma Singh by making compensation as ordered by the authorities during the prescribed period. Defendants No. 1 to 10 who are successors of Mehma Singh though shown as owners of the suit land in the revenue record, have no right to claim ownership or deny the title of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 2 and 3 and 5 who filed separate written statements and denied the averments made in the plaint. Defendants also took up a plea that Surta son of Tulsi and Attoo plaintiff filed Civil Writ Petitions No. 219 and 220 of 1958 claiming themselves to be the full owners after the promulgation of Ordinance No. XXIII, 2006 B.K but their writ petitions were dismissed and their plea of having become full owners was specifically negatived. It was further stated that some of the present plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had purchased the share of Gurcharan Singh and Harcharan Singh sons of Mehma Singh out of the suit land somewhere in 1962-63 and by purchasing the shares of Gurcharan Singh and Haricharan Singh, plaintiffs have improved their status to that of a co-sharer. It was also stated in the written statement that defendants No. 6 to 10 have no interest left in the suit land as they have already sold their respective shares in favour of the plaintiffs during the period 1962-63.