UDHAM SINGH Vs. GURDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Udham Singh and Jagraj Singh filed a suit for declaration that Udham Singh plaintiff is in possession of 15 K. 6 M of land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession on the land in dispute.

(2.) The defendants stated in the written statement that Jagraj Singh was in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant under them. He had been ordered to be ejected by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Tarn Taran on an application filed by them under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The appeal filed by him had been dismissed on 31.8.82. The plaintiffs also filed an application under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 read with Section 151, C.P.C., praying for an ad interim injunction. The defendant-respondents controverted the allegations in the application and pleaded that the applicants had no right, title or interest in the property in dispute and competent Court had passed the orders of the ejectment. The learned trial Judge partly accepted the application filed by the plaintiffs and he directed the defendants not to dispossess Jagraj Singh applicant from the land in dispute forcibly and except in due course of law. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff-petitioners went up in appeal. The learned District Judge has dismissed this appeal on the ground that ejectment of Jagraj Singh was being effected under the legal orders of competent authorities. He has also specifically mentioned in the order that the plaint does not contain any challenge to the order of the Collector much less to that of the Deputy Commissioner. So no case for interference was made out. Dissatisfied with these orders, Udham Singh and Joginder Singh have filed the present revision petition.

(3.) Mr. V.P. Sharda, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned District Judge has misread the plaint. It has been specifically averred in para 6 thereof that "defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no concern with the suit land. They have no right or title in the suit land. The land in dispute is originally owned and possessed by Udham Singh through Jagraj Singh who is cultivating the same as a tenant". It is further averred that no order of ejectment can be legally passed against the true owners. The plaintiff are owners of the suit land and are in possession thereof as owners and the order of ejectment, if any, is illegal. In the replication it had been specifically stated that order of ejectment was illegal as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the application for ejectment when Jagraj Singh had taken a plea that he was not a tenant under the defendants. In support of this contention, he has relied upon two decisions of this Court in Jia Lal and another V. State of Haryana and others, 1971 PunLJ 81and Harbans Singh V. Nahar Singh, 1978 PunLJ 137. These judgments indeed support the learned counsel, for the petitioners.