RAJ KUMAR Vs. DHARAM SINGH ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendant has corns up in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge, whereby it decreed the suit filed by deceased plaintiff Sardar Singh (now represented by his legal representatives Dharam Singh etc.) for declaration to the effect that the decree of the Civil Court dated April 28, 1973 copy Ex. D-5) and the order of purchase passed by the Assistant Collector, I Grade, Palwal on December 18, 1973 (copy Ex. D-5 and the order of purchase passed by the Assistant Collector, I Grade, Palwal on December 18, 1973 (copy Ex. D-4) would not bind him.

(2.) THE facts :the disputed land was owned by the defendants No. 2 to 5. (respondents No. 4 to 7 in second appeal) (hereinafter the non-contesting defendants) ; that Sardar Singh deceased plaintiff, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff) was an ejected tenant ; that he was to be resettled on some surplus area ; that Circle Revenue Patwari, Palwal, vide his order dated September 1, 1972 (copy Ex. D-9) alloted the disputed land to him and he was put in possession thereof ; that an entry to this effect was also made in the Daily Diary ; that defendant No. 1 appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the contesting defendant) filed a suit for declaration that he was a tenant in possession of the suit land under the non-contesting defendants ; that the said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree (copies Ex. D-3 and D-5 by the civil Court on April 28, 1973. The contesting defendant thereafter filed a petition under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) in the Court of Assistant Collector, I Grade, Palwal and that petition was allowed by him vide order dated December 18, 1973 (copy Ex-D-4) and the plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the civil Court (Ex. D-3 and D-5) and the order of purchase dated December 12, 1973 (copy Ex. D-4) in the Civil Court on the ground that he was not bound by the same and his possession could not be disturbed.

(3.) THE contested defendant controverted the pleas in the plaint and this led to the framing of the following issues :