LAWS(P&H)-1973-4-22

GRAM PANCHAYAT GARHI BRAHMANA Vs. PURAN SINGH

Decided On April 03, 1973
GRAM PANCHAYAT GARHI BRAHMANA Appellant
V/S
PURAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.6.1966 whereby the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant Gram Panchayat claimed possession of the suit land on the allegation that the said land vested in it by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and that during the Consolidation proceedings it was put in possession of the said land by the Consolidation authorities, but on 29.8.1959 defendants 1 and 2 secured back the possession thereof from it through the intervention of the Consolidation authorities. It was further alleged that defendants 1 and 2 effected transfers of some area from the said land to defendants 3 to 9 and that neither defendants 1 and 2 nor defendants 3 to 9 had any right whatsoever on the suit property. Defendants 1 to 5 and 8 filed a joint written statement wherein they challenged the assertion of the plaintiff Gram Panchayat that the suit land vested in it. It was claimed that defendants 1 and 2 had been in possession of the suit land for the last about fifty years and that defendants 3 to 5, as also defendants 6 to 9, had built their houses on part of the suit land. The trial Court first dismissed the suit on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in the matter, but the High Court on being petitioned against the said preliminary order held that the trial Court had the jurisdiction to hear the suit. The trial Court thereafter framed, in addition to the five issues framed earlier, six additional issues, out of which issue Nos. 7 and 9-A are the only issues that are relevant for the purpose of this appeal, which are in the following terms :

(3.) Before proceeding with the consideration of the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, I may first deal with the preliminary objection to the effect that the appeal has abated.