SARDARA SINGH ETC. Vs. HAKAM SINGH ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal has been filed by the Defendants against the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ferozepore, dated February 19, 1971.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the case of the Plaintiff was that Narain Singh was a Lambardar of village Hazarasinghwala in district Ferozepore. He himself was residing in another village. Therefore, Hardit Singh had been appointed as a substitute Lambardar for him. The said Hardit Singh was removed on November 8, 1957 and Sardara Singh, son of Dharam Singh, the Plaintiff, was appointed as such in his place. It is alleged by Sardara Singh that in fact he did not work as a substitute Lambardar and did not collect any land revenue. According to him, it was the Patwari of the village who was collecting and depositing the land -revenue though he used to obtain his thumb -impressions on several documents. It is stated by him that the arrears of land -revenue went up to Rs. 40,000. He was challaned under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust in respect of the aforesaid amount. The Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, acquitted him on February 22, 1965. In the meantime, he states he made representations to the authorities for settling the accounts by demanding receipts from the defaulters in proof of their having paid the land -revenue. The authorities did not take any action on his representations. His land, on the other hand, was auctioned on the ground that an amount of Rs. 12,635.40 was due from him on January 18, 1965, for a consideration of Rs. 11,780. It was purchased by Defendants 2 to 6. The sale was confirmed on February 31, 1966, by the Commissioner.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the Defendants who, inter alia, pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), that the Plaintiff was a defaulter and that the sale of the property in dispute was valid. Defendants 2 to 6 also pleaded that they had paid the price in full for the property. Consequently, they had become full owners thereof.