MADAN LAL L RAJA RAM Vs. MUNSHI DATU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plain tiffs from the judgment and order, dated 16-9-1955, of the Subordinate Judge First Class of Sangrur whereby their plaint has been returned to: them under Order 7, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, for presentation to proper Court.

(2.) The facts of the case are these. Madan Lal Plaintiff was the owner of 845 bighas of land-situate in the area of village Bishanpura. Out off this land he made a gift of300bighas and 18 biswas in the name of his son Lachhmi Narain Plaintiff" and of 306 bighas and 12 biswas in the name of his wife Vadya Wati Plaintiff on 28-3-1952, by two mutation entries Nos. 114 and 115. The Plaintiffs allege that each one of them was in actual physical possession of his own land and that was under his self-cultivation. Defendants 1 to 13 attempted to take forcible possession of the lands of the three Plaintiffs, that resulted in the Plaintiff taking proceedings against them under Section 145, Code of Criminal procedure again and during the pendency of those proceedings on 8-3 1954, those 13 Defendants attempted to take forcible possession of the lands of the three Plaintiffs, but were unsuccessful. The proceedings of their criminal case under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, ended, on 2-4-1954 in favour of those Defendants- and against the Plaintiffs. Thereupon immediately after that those 13 Defendants jointly took possession of the lands of all the three Plaintiffs and. re-moved standing crops in some of those lands. The details of the value of the standing crops of each Plaintiff removed by those Defendants are given in the plaint. With regard to Defendants 14-to 17 the allegation of the Plaintiffs is that they have had certain entries made in revenue papers-in their favour as tenants of the Plaintiffs. Upon these allegations the Plaintiffs have brought a suit for possession of the lands against all the 17 Defendants and for recovery of Rs. 1000/- as damages being the value of the standing crops removed by Defendants 1 to 13.

(3.) The Defendants have taken a number of pleas in defence but the only two pleas that are material for the purposes of this appeal are (a) that the suit with regard to the claim for Rs. 1000/- as value of the crops is not cognizable by a civil Court, and (b) that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties as also for causes of action.