LACHMAN SINGH Vs. KISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal filed against the judgment of reversal dated 22.1.1982 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Sangrur. The suit of the plaintiff-appellants claiming possession of the suit land has been dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellants filed Civil Suit No. 152 dated 21.3.1980 claiming that they were owners of the suit land as they have been cultivating the same along with Bali Singh son of Mangal Singh who was their father. Bali Singh died leaving behind three sons and a widow who are the plaintiff-appellants. After the death of Bali Singh mutation is alleged to have sanctioned in their favour. It has been alleged that the defendant-respondent has forcibly and unauthorisedly entered possession in Kharif 1979 and despite requests he refused to handover the possession. The trial Court placed reliance on sale certificate Ex. P-4 duly signed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sunam in favour of the plaintiff-appellants and mutation No. 1252 Ex. P-3 sanctioned in their favour. The plaintiffs have been shown in column No. 8 as owners. Bali Singh father of the plaintiff-appellants was shown in cultivating possession as tenant at will in the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 Ex. P-1 which contains a note that mutation of the land was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff- appellants. In Khasra Girdawari for the period 27.10.1978 to 5.10.1979 Ex. P-2 possession of the father of the plaintiff-appellants has been shown. However, from Kharif 1979 defendant-respondent was shown in possession as tenant at will. Reference has also been made to the statement of Naurata Ram Patwari D.W.3 who has admitted in the cross-examination that the plaintiff-appellants were given the proprietary rights and the mutation was sanctioned in their favour. On the basis of the afore-mentioned evidence it was held by the trial Court that plaintiff-appellants were owner of the suit land and that the suit was filed within limitation because they were alleged to have been dispossessed in Kharif 1979 and the suit was filed on 21.3.1980. However, the learned District Judge reversed the findings upholding that in the Jamabandi for the year 1977-78, Ex. P-1, the State of Punjab is recorded as owner and Bali Singh father of plaintiff-appellant Nos. 1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff-appellant No. 4 was recorded in possession. It was further held that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sunam could not have issued a certificate of sale under Section 15(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for brevity 'the 1972 Act').

(3.) SHRI Amarjit Markan, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has pointed out that the sale certificate Ex. P-4 has been issued in respect of land measuring 60 kanals 18 marlas whereas the suit has been filed claiming possession in respect of land measuring 18 kanals and 12 marlas. According to the learned counsel there is apparent discrepancy which has not been answered by any evidence by the plaintiff-appellants.