SURJEET Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendants in the original lis, against whom a decree of possession was passed by learned Subordinate Judge, which has since been confirmed in appeal preferred by them, by learned first Appellate Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts culminating into the filing of this appeal reveal that the plaintiff filed a suit pertaining to the land measuring 63 kanals 6 marlas, inter-alia, pleading that the same was part of the village pond and was used for the common purposes of the village. One Lal Singh was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in 1972. Defendants 1 to 4 filed Suit No. 1405 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Kaithal in 1972 against the Gram Panchayat. Lal Singh filed an admission written statement and suffered decree dated 11.12.1972. According to the decree aforesaid, the suit land was held to be owned and possessed by defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff challenged that decree on the ground that the same was based on fraud and misrepresentation and that the Sarpanch had colluded with defendants 1 to 4 and he, therefore, suffered that decree. No specific meeting of the Gram Panchayat was called to admit the claim of defendants 1 to 4 nor any such meeting was held. It has further been pleaded that the Sarpanch and other defendants belong to the same Pana and they, thus, colluded with each other. The village and Gram Panchayat, in the manner aforesaid, were deprived of the suit property. Subsequently, in 1975, defendants 5 to 43 filed suit in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Jind against defendants 1 to 4 in respect of this very land. Defendants 1 to 4 admitted the claim of defendants 5 to 43 and in this way, decree was passed in their favour on 13.2.1975. It was pleaded that this decree was also illegal, void and ineffective against the rights of the Gram Panchayat and other villagers. The plaintiff moved the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jind under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961). However, according to the decision given by this Court, the matter could not proceed there and, therefore, the plaintiff filed present suit. A decree for declaration to the effect that the decrees aforesaid were illegal, void and without jurisdiction, was prayed for.

(3.) MR . Rajesh Chaudhary, learned counsel representing the appellants, in support of this appeal has raised two fold contentions. It is first urged by him that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the same was clearly barred under Section 13 of the Act of 1961. It is then urged by learned counsel that the land in dispute was not Shamlat Deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act of 1961 and, therefore, the findings recorded to the contrary cannot sustain. This argument has primarily been raised on the basis of Jamabandi, Ex. D-3, pertaining to the year 1962-63.