PIRTHI SINGH Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by Pirthi Singh defendant against the judgment dated 21st March, 1967, of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, Camp at Narnaul, accepting the appeal of the plaintiff Raghbir Singh and setting aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and decreeing suit of the plaintiff with no order as to costs.

(2.) The facts of this case are that during the consolidation of holdings in village Bhurjat, tehsil and district Mchindergarh, plot No. 106. measuring 2 Marlas was allotted to Rohtas Singh and Pirthi Singh defendants Nos 1 and 2, by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Raghubir Singh plaintiff and his brother Randhir Singh defendant No. 3, filed a revision petition against that order under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (hereinafter called the Act) which was heard by the Additional Director of Consolidation, Punjab, Rohtak, and he accepted the same and ordered that plot No. 106 should be given to Raghubir Singh and Randhir Singh while defendants Nos. 1 and 2, should be given plot No. 108-A instead of plot No. 106. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 after that filed a review application before the Additional Director who reversed his first order and directed that plot No. 106 be given to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Raghubir Singh then filed this suit for a declaration that he and defendant No. 3, were owners of plot No. 106 and the order of the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, dated 25th September, 1963, by which he reallotted this plot to defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was illegal without jurisdiction and null and void.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. They pleaded that the parties had appointed Hazari Singh and Mehtab Singh as Arbitrators who gave the verdict in their favour that plot No. 106 should be allotted to them, that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Additional Director of Consolidation when he passed the first order and therefore they made an application for review and he passed the impugned order which was valid and legal. They alleged that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On these pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the trial Court :-