NAGINA SINGH Vs. GURDIP SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Bhago was owner of agricultural land measuring 87 Kanals 8 Marlas. Nagina Singh and Hazura Singh were her tenants-at-will since 1958. According to the revenue records, since Rabi 1962, the aforesaid tenants were shown in possession of agricultural land, till Rabi 1963. In Kharif 1963 Pal Singh son of Nagina Singh tenant was shown to be in possession. Thereafter, consolidation took place, and in lieu of the land owned by Smt. Bhago, new Khasra numbers measuring about 87 Kanals were allotted to her. In Jamabandi of the year 1964-65 which came into being after consolidation, Smt Bhago was shown in possession as owner of the land. Nagina Singh and Hazura Singh tenants applied for correction of the Khasra Girdawaris from 1965-66 to date in July, 1969 on the plea that they were in occupation of the land as tenants and the name of Smt. Bhago was wrongly shown therein. However, the tenants remained unsuccessful in those proceedings. On 14th July, 1969 Smt. Bhago mortgaged with possession the land owned by her with Hardial Singh and Jit Singh. Those mortgagees tried to disturb the possession of the tenants. They filed a civil suit for injunction and applied for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court granted temporary injunction but on mortgagees' appeal, order of status quo was made. On 3rd June, 1971, the tenants are alleged to have been actually dispossessed by the mortgagees and, therefore, they withdrew their suit on 14th June, 1971 vide Exhibit P-23. On 16th August, 1971, the tenants filed an application under section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for restoration of possession. At the same time, they were advised to take proceedings in civil Court for violation of the order of status quo. In those proceedings the civil Court held that after Rabi 1973 the tenants were not in possession and, hence there was no violation of the order of status quo.

(2.) The Collector, who decided the application under section 43 of the Act, by order dated 30th September, 1974 (Exhibit P. 28) found that the tenants were in possession till Rabi 1963 and found the mortgagees to be in possession from 1969 onwards and since the tenenacy had not been got determined, it was ordered that the possession of the land be restored to the tenants. The mortgagees went up in appeal before the Commissioner and their appeal was allowed, but on tenants' revision the learned Financial Commissioner by order dated 19th April, 1979 (Exhibit P. 20) allowed the revision and restored the order of the Collector. Before the order of the Financial Commissioner was passed, Smt Bhago, vide sale deeds Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 dated 4th March, 1977, sold her rights in the land to the sons of the mortgagees.

(3.) After the order of the Financial Commissioner, when the Revenue Authorities sought to implement that order to restore possession of land to the tenants, the aforesaid vendees filed a civil suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land and that Nagina Singh and Hazura Singh are not their tenants and that orders of the Financial Commissioner and Collector are illegal, void, ineffective, without jurisdiction and sought permanent injunction to restrain the alleged tenants from dispossessing them from the land in dispute on the basis of the said orders. They also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. That matter came up to this Court and it was held that it was not a case in which injunction should be granted to restrain the compliance of the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner and the Collector. That judgment is Nagina Singh v. Gurdeep Singh, 1985 PunLJ 334. When the suit proceeded, the alleged tenants pleaded that they were tenants and continued to be in possession till 3rd June, 1971, when they were dispossessed by the mortgagees. Reliance was placed on the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Collector. However, after the refusal of the temporary injunction by this Court, the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the Collector were implemented and on 11th November, 1980 the tenants got possession. Thereafter the plaintiffs amended the plaint to seek relief of possession on the pleas already raised. The two Courts below decreed the suit for possession and the alleged tenants came to this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. While admitting the R.S.A., the execution of the decree for possession was stayed on the condition that the appellants should furnish security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the Executing Court within two months. The appellants did not furnish security within two months and thereafter execution was taken out and they were dispossessed on 21st January, 1984. After dispossession, an application was filed in this Court for restoration of possession, which was dismissed. On tenants' appeal to the Supreme Court order for restoration of possession was passed. In pursuance of that order, possession of the land in dispute has been restored to the tenants.