UDEY SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE MUNDIAN KALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, reversing on appeal the decision of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The facts are simple. The plaintiffs were all through recorded as non-occupancy tenants in the revenue record. When the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (Act No. 8 of 1953) was enacted, the plaintiffs moved the Revenue Court for the purpose that they be declared as occupancy tenants. They failed in the hierarchy of the Revenue Courts and that decision has become final. As the plaintiffs were held not to be occupancy tenants, the suit land automatically vested in the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat then took proceedings to take possession of the land from the plaintiffs. It was at that stage that the plaintiffs filed the present suit for a declaration that they are the occupancy tenants. They also claimed an injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat from taking possession of the land. It is axiomatic that if the plaintiffs are held to be occupancy tenants they automatically become owners under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act. The trial Court, however, held that the plaintiffs were occupancy tenants ignoring the final decision inter parties of the Revenue Court and thus decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal by the Gram Panchayat, the lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and came to an independent decision and held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were occupancy tenants. To my mind, the entire matter is concluded by the judgment of the Revenue Court. Revenue Court is the exclusive Court of jurisdiction to determine whether a person is or is not an occupancy tenant. That Court examined the matter and came to a firm conclusion that the plaintiffs were not occupancy tenants. That judgment became final and in view of that judgment the Civil Court could not go into the question. In fact that judgment would operate as res judicata and bar the present suit. In any case the lower appellate Court has held on evidence that plaintiffs are not occupancy tenants. This finding being on a question of fact is conclusive in second appeal.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.