SARWAN SINGH Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to appreciate the short question involved in this Regular Second Appeal, it is necessary to have a look at the facts of the case.

(2.) The plaintiff agreed to purchase the land in dispute belonging to defendant No. 1 Kishan Lal as per the agreement of sale dated 24.3.1969. Defendant No. 1 refused to execute the sale deed giving rise to the filing of a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale. The suit against defendant No. 1 was decreed by the trial Court on 27.8.1973 and the aforesaid decree by the trial Court on 27.8.1973 and the aforesaid decree became final upon the dismissal of the appeal on 3.2.1979. In execution of the decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale, the sale deed was actually registered on 27.5.1981 and this is how the plaintiff became the owner of the land. It may also be noticed that partition took place between the owners and the plaintiff was held entitled to the disputed land. It has also remained and undisputed fact before the Courts below that the defendant-appellants were inducted on the land in dispute as tenants, admittedly, on 6.10.1973 by the aforesaid Krishan Lal defendant No. 1 after the passing of the decree by the trial Court on 27.8.1973. Report Roznamcha Exhibit P.5 evidences the factum of handing over of possession to the defendant-appellants. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent impleading Krishan Lal the previous owner of the disputed land, as well as persons who were alleged to have been inducted as tenants after the grant of the decree by the trial Court. The plaintiff claimed a decree for mesne profits in the instant suit from the so-called tenants for a sum of Rs. 2250/- for use and occupation of land in dispute.

(3.) The counsel for the appellant, without going into the disputed findings of the fact, has argued that the Courts below have decided the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court entirely on wrong premises. It has been argued that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The Courts below while deciding the question whether the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the instant suit placed reliance upon two decided cases reported as Faqir Singh V. Gurbachan Singh and another, 1971 AIR(P&H) 399 and Ajit Singh V. The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh,1983 1 LLR 426 in order to hold that civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.