BHULLAN Vs. PREM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tejinder Singh Dhindsa.J (Oral) - The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having been unsuccessful in both the courts below.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for for a decree of possession of the land detailed in para no.1 of the plaint challenging the validity of the judgement and decree dated 30.8.1983 passed in civil suit no.316 of 1981 titled as Shish Ram Vs. State of Haryana . It was pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant had become owner and had remained in possession of the suit land till 18.2.1985. A plea had been taken that he had been dispossessed from the suit land forcibly. As per contention of the plaintiff-appellant the land in dispute had been declared surplus and allotted to the plaintiff-appellant by the competent authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. It was further pleaded that the actual possession had been delivered by the competent revenue authority on 13.8.1980 and the mutation had also been sanctioned in his favour accordingly. The validity of the judgement and decree dated 30.8.1983 passed in civil suit no.316 of 1981 titled as Shish Ram Vs. State of Haryana was being impugned on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant was not a party to the proceedings of the suit and no opportunity had been given to him of being heard and as such the judgement and decree would not be binding upon him. Upon notice the defendants-respondents filed the written statement and it was pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. It was further pleaded that the order of the Collector vide which the land of the defendants-respondents had been declared surplus had been set aside. The defendants had contended that it was the State of Haryana which had been a necessary party to the proceedings in civil suit no.316 of 1981 and that the plaintiff was not a necessary party. Upon the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the trial court and being dissatisfied even the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant stands dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgement and decree dated 15.10.1998.