BACHNO Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by Shrimati Bachno, plaintiff, whose suit for declaration and injunction was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge First Class, Amritsar, though in appeal to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, the declaration prayed for by her was allowed but the relief for injunction was refused. The parties were left to bear their own costs by both the Courts below.

(2.) Shrimati Lachhmi was the owner of 82 kanals and 12 marlas of land situated in village Kazikot, Tehsil and District Amritsar. On the 7th December 1959, Shrimati Lachhmi by a document (Exhibit P.1) made a gift of the entire land in favour of Shrimati Bachno. Thereafter, consolidation of holdings took place in the village under the provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and changed khasra numbers were allotted in lieu of the original land. On the 1st June, 1962, Shrimati Bachno brought this suit giving rise to this appeal in which she claimed for a declaration that she was owner in possession of this land and also prayed for injunction against the defendants restraining them from obtaining possession of any part of the disputed land through the consolidation authorities. Two defendants were cited in the plaint - Sohan Singh and Udham Singh and it is only Sohan Singh who contested the suit and who is the contesting respondent to this appeal. The stand taken up by him was that he was in possession of five of the numbers out of the total land, that these field numbers being 5/10,6/6,6/1, 4/2, 15 and 6/17/1 the land was still in the process of consolidation and possession had not been delivered to the new rights holders. Sohan Singh maintained that he was a tenant of the five fields mentioned above and was as tenant entitled to get possession of the corresponding field numbers under the new arrangement to be brought about by consolidation. In paragraph 6 of the preliminary objection, there was also an allegation that Smt. Lachhmi made a registered will in favour of defendant No. 2, that is Udham Singh, to the effect that he would be entitled to all her property after her death.

(3.) There was, however, no reference to the alleged will in favour of Udham Singh in the plaint. Various issues were framed by the Courts below but the only issues, the findings on which were 'controverted before the lower appellate Court, are issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, which are as follows :-