NANHAR Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the site in dispute. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership. That being so, the present second appeal is not competent and must, therefore, be dismissed.

(2.) Mr Ram Sarup, learned counsel for the appellants, however, contends that before the decree against the plaintiffs was passed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, plaintiffs were in possession and therefore, by reason of the provisions of Section 4(3)(ii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (Act No. 18 of 1961), they had become owners of the land. It may be mentioned that in that suit the present defendants came to Court under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act on the short ground that the present plaintiffs' possession was illegal as they had forcibly dispossessed the defendants. This contention was upheld by the Court in that suit. It is fundamental that Court will only take notice of lawful possession for purposes of Section 4(3)(ii) and not of unlawful possession. The decree inter partes clearly shows that the possession of the present plaintiffs before they were dispossessed under Section 9 was forcible and therefore illegal. In this situation no benefit can be claimed by the plaintiffs under Section 4(3)(ii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act.

(3.) For the reasons given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.