GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-Gram Panchayat, Village Matoi, challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 4/11/1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby the appeal filed by the defendants was accepted and the judgment and decree dtd. 21/4/1993 passed by the learned trial Court in favour of the plaintiff was reversed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff Gram Panchayat, Village Matoi, through its Sarpanch Amar Singh, instituted the present suit pleading that the suit property is shamlat dehland belonging to the Panchayat and it is the owner and in possession thereof, as detailed in the headnote of the plaint. It was pleaded that defendant no.1 Bachan Singh (since deceased), defendants no.6 and 7 and one Bhagwant Singh, father of the remaining defendants, purported to have purchased the suit land vide a registered sale deed dtd. 17/5/1957 from one Dalip Singh, Sarpanch and Harnam Singh, Panch. According to the plaintiff, neither Dalip Singh nor Harnam Singh was authorised by the Gram Panchayat to alienate the suit land and no resolution authorising such transfer was ever passed. The said sale deed was alleged to be illegal, null and void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff Panchayat. It was further pleaded that on the basis of the said sale deed, defendants managed to get mutation sanctioned in their favour in collusion with revenue officials and corresponding entries were made in the revenue record. The plaintiff averred that the defendants continued to remain in unlawful possession of the suit land without any right, title or interest and their possession could at best be permissive, being that of trustees or office bearers of the Panchayat. Despite repeated demands to restore possession, the defendants failed to do so, compelling the Panchayat to file the present suit on 15/6/1984 for declaration that the sale deed dtd. 17/5/1957 and subsequent mutation are void and ineffective and for consequential relief of possession.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed joint written statement, controverting the allegations of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit land, which was validly purchased by defendant Bachan Singh (since deceased), defendants no.6 and 7 and Bhagwan Singh through the registered sale deed executed by Dalip Singh, former Sarpanch, and Harnam Singh, Panch, and ever since then, the defendants have been in lawful possession. It was asserted that mutation was validly sanctioned in their favour and corresponding entries made in the revenue record. The defendants further claimed that they had effected improvements on the land. In the alternative, it was pleaded that the defendants being in possession of the suit property since 1957 had perfected their title by way of adverse possession, the possession being continuous, open and hostile to the plaintiff.