GHARSI RAM Vs. PRAYAG CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed by the defendants of the case against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, while deciding two civil suits between the same parties and pertaining to the same suit property.

(2.) Dispute pertains to 1/2 share in the suit land detailed in head note the plaint, which was mortgaged by one Tulsha son of Kesha resident of village Ghanghala in favour of the plaintiffs Laxmi Narain and others (respondents herein) for an amount of Rs.1500.00, regarding which mutation No.283 dtd. 25/9/1954 (Ex.P-16) was sanctioned. Admittedly, said Tulsha expired in 1962 without leaving any legal heir.

(3.) It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that their mortgagor Tulsha used to be maurusi (occupancy tenant) on suit land since prior to 1952 and that he had perfected his title by virtue of the provisions of The Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. According to plaintiffs, on the death of Tulsha, his estate was escheated to the State Government, who became the owner thereof, but defendants No.1 to 26 (appellants herein) claiming to be erstwhile landlords got mutation No.305 dtd. 13/6/1963 sanctioned in their favour regarding cancellation of the maurusi rights of Tulsha and started claiming to be owners of the suit land to the extent of share of Tulsha. Said mutation was sanctioned after the death of Tulsha and is challenged by the plaintiffs to be wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights. According to the plaintiffs, as Tulsha had perfected his title by virtue of 1952 Act, so defendants were left with no right or title in suit land to get the impugned mutation sanctioned in their favour. As defendant had started interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs, so decree for permanent injunction was sought by filing one of the suits.