PURAN Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant, was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

(2.) FACTS , in brief, are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration against the defendant-Gram Panchayat, with the allegations that the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the suit property and that the defendant had no right, titled or interest in the suit land. It was alleged that the defendant was recorded as owner of the agricultural land in dispute measuring 70 kanals 1 marla and that the father of the plaintiffs had entered into a contract of cultivation to the effect that the plaintiffs and their successor-in-interest would continue to cultivate the said land as owners and that the defendant/owner and their successor would not eject the plaintiffs and their successors-in-interest from the suit land. It was alleged that this agreement was made about 100 years back and that now the plaintiffs had acquired occupancy rights under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953. It was alleged that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the suit land and the revenue entries in the name of the defendant, as owner of the suit land, were wrong and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs had acquired occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953, and as such, the plaintiffs had become the owners in possession of the suit land by acquiring ownership rights. The appeal, filed by the defendant-Gram Panchayat, was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the suit, filed by the plaintiffs, was dismissed, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had become owners in possession of the suit property by acquiring occupancy rights. It was held that infact the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the present suit and that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the plaintiffs have now filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court.