RAJINDER SINGH Vs. GUR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five Regular Second Appeals Nos. 496 to 500 of 1975 have arisen from the same judgment and decree dt. Nov. 16, 1974. of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, exercising enhanced appellate powers. The appeals are therefore being disposed of together.

(2.) JAGJIT Singh gifted his land in 1953-54 to his wife and two sons: one of whom is the plaintiff-appellant Rajinder Singh. The appellant's share in the gift was 47 Kanals 19 Marlas. The land gifted by Jagjit Singh was in occupation of the tenants. Some of them who are defendants-respondents in these appeals filed applications under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. 1953 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') on June 9, 1960. for purchase of lands occupied by them. These applications were filed against all the donees. The appellant was a minor at that time. The Assistant Collector allowed the purchase of lands to the tenants vide his order dt. June 15, 1960, on the basis of a compromise between the parties. On attaining majority, the appellant brought the instant five suits on Feb. 9, 1966, against five sets of tenants assailing the validity of the order of the Assistant Collector. He claimed declaration that the impugned compromise order is illegal and is ineffective against his ownership rights. As a consequential relief he claimed possession of the land in dispute gifted to him by his father. The learned trial court upheld thc order of the Assistant Collector and further found that the appellant's suits were barred by time. On these findings all the five suits were dismissed. The appellant preferred appeals against judgments and the decrees of the trial Court which were consolidated. The lower appellate Court affirming the findings of the trial court dismissed the appeals.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has raised three points in these appeals. Firstly, that the plaintiff-appellant is a small landowner, therefore, his land could not be purchased by tenants under Section 18 of the Act. Secondly, that appellant's mother was incompetent to effect compromise on his behalf with the tenants. Thirdly, that the appellant's suits were filed well within time.