HARBANS SINGH Vs. TEJA SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Defendant's Second Appeal against whom suit for possession of the agricultural land was dismissed by the trial Court but decreed in appeal.

(2.) ONE Pal Singh was the original owner of the suit land measuring 16 -K 5 -M. He sold the same to Gurmej Singh and Anokh Singh. The Plaintiff Teja Singh filed the suit for possession by way of pre -emption which was decreed by the trial Court on 17th July, 1967 (Copy of the judgment Ex. P -5). Appeal against the said decree was dismissed vide copy of judgment Ex. P -4, dated 22nd December, 1967. In execution of the said decree, the Plaintiff got possession of the suit land vide report, dated 18th April, 1968 (Ex. P -1). To pre -empt the said sale, Harbans Singh, son of the Vendor Pal Singh, also filed a suit which was dismissed on 9th August, 1965, vide copy of the judgment Ex. P -6, as the pre -emption amount was not deposited. Latter on, Harbans Singh and his brother filed a suit against the vendees Gurmej Singh and Anokh Singh and therein got a collusive decree against them on 3rd July, 1969. It may be noticed here that the Plaintiff Teja Singh who had obtained the possession of the suit land in execution of the pre -emption decree in his favour was not made a party to the said suit. The Defendants Harbans Singh and others obtained possession of the suit land, in execution of the collusive decree, dated 3rd July, 1969, on 20th August, 1969. Hence the present suit was filed by Teja Singh, Plaintiff, on 16th February, 1970, for possession, on the basis of his title which he had acquired on the strength of the pre -emption decree. The suit was contested, inter alia, on the ground that it was not within limitation; that Defendants No. 1 and 2, i. e. Harbans Singh and Daresa, got possession of the suit land on the basis of the suit for declaration as heirs of vendor, and, therefore, the Plaintiff had no concern with the suit land, It was also pleaded that the Plaintiff had filed an appeal against the decree, dated 3rd July, 1969, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The Defendants admitted that Pal Singh was the owner of the suit land but he had sold the same in favour of Defendants No. 3 and 4 without consideration; that the Plaintiff was not related to the vendor Pal Singh, and, therefore, Defendants No. 1 and 2 had rightly filed the suit for declaration and got possession of the suit land. I he trial Court found that the decree for declaration obtained by Defendants No. 1 and 2 against Defendants No. 3 and 4, dated 3rd July, 1969, was not collusive, and, therefore, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the effect of the decree obtained by Defendants No. 1 and 2 was that it was passed in the absence of the Plaintiff who was legally in possession of the suit land, and, as such, this decree was not binding on the Plaintiff. The lower appellate Court also observed, "Actually it was a collusive decree as is apparent from the very face of it. The person who was in possession of the suit land by virtue of civil court decree, was not made a party". In view of that finding, the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same, the Defendant Harbans Singh has filed this Second Appeal in this Court.

(3.) AS regards the appeal filed by Teja Singh against the said decree, it was rightly withdrawn by him on 9th February, 1971, as he was not a party thereto, and, therefore, not competent to file the appeal.