TARLOK SINGH Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal filed by Tarlok Singh, plaintiff, against the judgment dated July 16, 1970, of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur whereby he accepted the appeal of Harnam Singh defendant No. 2 and set aside the decree of the lower Court for possession of the land in suit bearing Khasra Nos. 237/175 and 238/175 -against him and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs regarding that land against him. However, the decree for possession for Khasra No. 176/50-Min and for recovery of Rs. 1360/- against defendant No. 1 was maintained.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the land measuring 8 Kanals 10 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 237/175 (1 Kanal 10 Marlas), 238/175 (3 Kanals 10 Marlas) and 176/50-Min (3 Kanals 10 Marlas) situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Hussan Mashmula, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, was evacuee property and it is situated at present within the municipal limits of Pathankot town. The Rehabilitation authorities first leased out this land to Tarlok Singh, plaintiff, and thereafter the District Rent and Managing Officer, Gurdaspur, transferred this land in his favour for Rs. 12750/- on the basis of an agreement dated June 6, 1963 and the sale price was to be paid by him in seven yearly instalments, and the first instalment was payable on June 3, 1964. The ownership in the property was to be given to the plaintiff when its value had been realised in full. M/s D.S. Bist and Sons, a firm carrying on the business of Forest Lessees and Timber Merchants of Pathankot obtained this land on rent from Tarlok Singh, plaintiff with effect from December 15, 1952 for a period of six months by means of an oral agreement for stocking timber and agreed to pay rent of Rs. 170/- for the said period that is at the rate of Rs. 20/- per kanal. After the expiry of the said period of six months, the firm defendant No. 1 continued to be in possession and it regularly paid rent to him upto June 14, 1963 against receipts. One of the terms of the lease was that the firm defendant No. 1 would not sublet the land without the consent of the plaintiff and that they would not build any structure thereon. However, defendant No. 1 was alleged to have sublet a portion of this property to Harnam Singh, defendant No. 2 without the consent of the plaintiff and the sub-tenant built a pucca room and a verandah and set up a few katcha huts in that portion. The plaintiff filed suit for possession of this land against the defendants and also for recovery of Rs. 1360/- on account of arrears of rent from defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 in its written statement admitted the allegations made in the plaint to be correct and prayed that the decree be passed in his favour. Harnam. Singh, defendant, however, contested the suit. He alleged that he is a direct tenant under the plaintiff of 5 Kanals of land bearing Khasra Nos. 238/175 and 237/175 for the last about 18 years and he has been paying rent to him and, therefore, this civil suit is not competent and the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He also claimed compensation for the improvements made and for planting fruit trees on this land. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :-

(3.) It was stated by Mr. H.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the appellant that in execution of the decree for possession passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Khasra No. 176/50-Min, measuring 3 kanals 10 marlas, against the firm M/s D.S. Bist, the plaintiff obtained possession of the land and there is no dispute regarding that.