SAT BIR SINGH Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sheo Ram (who died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate Court and whose legal representatives were brought on the record) and Risal Singh filed the suit for possession of 49 Kanals of land situated in village Saidpur with a prayer that the possession of the suit land be got delivered to Gram Panchayat of that village. Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat of village Saidpur were arrayed as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiffs were proprietors and residents in village Saidpur. The said land was owned and possessed by the Gram Panchayat of the village and it was used for the common purpose. In 1964-65 Risal Singh was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. Against the interest of the Gram Panchayat he exchanged the suit on 13 January, 1965 with land measuring 8 Kanals belonging to Dhani Ram (defendant No. 1) by means of a registered document dated 13th January, 1965 and delivered the possession of the said land to him. The exchange deed was void as the Gram Panchayat had not passed any proper resolution authorising Risal Singh Sarpanch to effect this exchange nor the permission of the Gram Sabha was obtained. Even the permission from the Government was not obtained for this exchange. As the Gram Panchayat was in collusion with Dhani Ram and was not prepared to take any proceedings against him and this inaction on the part of the Gram Panchayat was against the interest of the residents of the village.

(2.) The suit was contested only by defendant No. 1. He pleaded that the exchange was perfectly valid and the same was effected after a proper resolution had been passed by the Gram Panchayat. Two similar suits had earlier been filed against him and were dismissed and, therefore, this suit was not maintainable. The second suit had been filed under Order 1 Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, and thus the plaintiffs were also parties to it. The present suit was barred by the principles of res judicata. Some other pleas were also taken by him as will be clear from the following issues framed by the learned trial Court :-

(3.) Under issue No. 1 the Court held that the transaction of exchange was clearly in violation of the statutory rules (i.e. Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965) and was based on fraud and, therefore, the exchange was illegal and void. Under issue No. 2 it was held that though the suit had been filed in collusion with Gram Panchayat but it had no effect on the suit as the Panchayat itself was not precluded from filing the suit. Under issue No. 4 it was held that the suit was not barred. Under issue No. 5 it was held that as the plaintif had filed the suit on the basis of the title vesting in the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the suit could be filed within 12 years from the date of exchange and since it had been so filed, it was clearly within limitation. In view of the above findings, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, Dhani Ram filed an appeal which was heard by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. He discussed only issue No. 4 and held that as the earlier suit on the same cause of action and between the same parties was pending when this suit was filed, therefore, the present suit was not maintainable as it amounted to abuse of the process of the Court. He accordingly dismissed the suit without giving any finding on the other issues. Feeling aggrieved, two of the legal representatives of Sheo Ram have come to this Court in appeal.