LACHHMAN DAS AND OTHERS Vs. ARJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal filed by Lachhman Dass and nine other defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge Amritsar, whereby he accepted the Appeal of Arjan Singh plaintiff-respondent, and awarded a decree for declaration in his favour against Lachhman Dass and other defendants. The only question that arises for determination in the present appeal is whether the suit for declaration as brought by the plaintiff-respondent is maintainable.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Lachhman Dass and other appellants were granted a decree for possession in respect of the property in dispute against Mst. Sardar Begum and 11 others including Amar Singh on 4th July 1945. The appellants filed an application on 29th August 1953 for execution of that decree and in the application they described Amar Singh, judgment-debtor, as Amar Singh alias Arjan Singh. Warrant for possession was accordingly issued on 5th March 1954. On 8th March 1954 when the bailiff wanted to execute the decree by dispossessing Arjan Singh, the latter executed a rent in note in favour of the appellants with respect to the property in dispute. The bailiff accordingly made a report that Arjan Singh had executed rent deed in favour of the decree-holders. Arjan Singh then filed an application under Order 21, rule 100, Civil Procedure Code, contending that he was in possession of the property in his own right and that he had been illegally dispossessed from the same. The executing Court held that as Arjan Singh had executed rent note in favour of the decree-holders, no cause of action was left to him to come to the Court under Order 21, rule 100, Civil Procedure Code. His application was accordingly rejected. Arjan Singh then filed the present suit on 19th October 1954 for a declaration that there was no relationship of tenant and landlord between him and the defendants in respect of the property in dispute. According to Arjan Singh he was made to execute the rent note in favour of Lachhman Dass and other appellants by coercion and undue influence. Arjan Singh also prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from evicting him on the basis of the aforesaid rent note, but this relief was subsequently given up on 13th June 1955.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that they exercised no coercion and undue influence in obtaining the aforesaid rent note from the plaintiff and that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. The following issues were framed in the case:-