RATAN SINGH Vs. RAM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case may be noticed : - One Vakilo was the last male owner of land measuring 163 Kanals. He sold his occupancy rights on 7th July, 1934, in respect of the said land for a consideration of Rs. 2,900/- through a registered sale-deed to Lachhman Dass father of Ram Parkash respondent No. 1 and Mehar Chand, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 5. Rattan Chand, plaintiff-appellant, who was minor at that time, filed a declaratory suit, challenging the sale made by his father, on the pleas that the land was ancestral and the sale was not for legal necessity. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 17th October, 1945, and the alienation was held to be not binding on the decendants of Vakilo, after his death. Lachhrnan Dass, Vendee, preferred an appeal, which was accepted to this extent that the sale of the occupancy rights was converted into mortgage, which was made to become operative on the death of Vakilo, whereafter Rattan Singh or the legal reversioners would be entitled to redeem the mortgage on payment of Rs. 2,900/-. This decree passed by the Appellate Court became final as the matter was not carried any further. Vakilo died on 19th January, 1977, with the result Rattan Singh and Puran Singh sons of Vakilo filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the respondents. One of the pleas raised by the respondents with which we are concerned in this appeal is that Lachhman Das who had purchased the occupancy rights had become the owner of the suit land during the life time of Vakilo by virtue of the Punjab Occupancy Tehants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as such the plaintiffs appellants were not entitled to any relief, as the rights sold by their father to Lachhman Dass had ceased to exist. On consideration of the entire matter, the trial Court decided this point in favour of the defendants-respondents and it was held that by operation of law the respondents had become the owners of the land in dispute. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal, but did not succeed. Still dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

(3.) On 27th January, 1982, the appeal came up for motion hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, who admitted the same to hearing by a Division Bench. Thereafter, the appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench. As is evident from the referring order, the Bench found that there was a conflict between the two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Jiwan Singh v. Ram Kishan, (1966) 68 Pun LR 626 and Khushi Ram v. Jaswant Rai, (1966) 68 Pun LR 922, and found that the controversy deserved to be resolved by a larger Bench. Consequently, the matter was referred for decision by a larger Bench and that is how we are seized of the matter.