LAWS(P&H)-1996-8-84

JAGIR SINGH Vs. GANGA RAM

Decided On August 13, 1996
JAGIR SINGH Appellant
V/S
GANGA RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiffs Jagir Singh and Ranjit Singh sons of Kishan Singh have filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 13. 11. 1991 passed by the Court of Additional district Judge, Ferozepur, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6. 12. 1989 passed by the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Zira, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants for declaration as prayed for.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case arc that plaintiffs Sarvshri Jagir Singh and Ranjit Singh filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 25 kanals 2 marlas as detailed and described in the heading of the plaint situated in the area of village Chuchakwind and that the allotment of the land measuring 16 kanals 3 marlas being 2/3rd share of the land measuring 24 kanals 1 marla is void and the defendants be restrained from asserting their ownership over the said parcel of land and they be further restrained from taking the possession from the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE suit was contested by defendant No. 1. Though at one stage defendants No. 2 and 3 filed separate written statement. But later on defendant No. 2 was deleted vide order dated 21. 1. 1988 passed by the trial Court. The plea of defendant No. 1 in the written statement is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as its jurisdiction is barred under Section 16 of the Punjab Package Deals Property (Disposal) Act, 1976 read with section 17 of the same Act; that the suit is barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. On merits, it was pleaded by defendant No. 1 that the land in dispute vested in the Central Government which was later on taken over by the State of Punjab under Punjab Package Deals Property (Disposal)Act, 1976. This defendant denied the plea taken up by the plaintiff regarding the land having been sub-mortgaged by Ram Singh son of Karam Singh in the year 1945 in favour of Dara and others and regarding the evacuee interest not having been separated under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951. The order of allotment has not been challenged by the plaintiffs before the Competent Authority so far and the property in dispute has been dealt with by the Managing Officer in a legal and valid manner. The plaintiffs have no right to question the validity of the Act of 1976 or the process regarding the allotment of the suit land. In the previous suit brought by the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 hard made a statement that he would take the possession of the suit land in due course of law and by filing the present suit, the plaintiffs intend to usurp the rights of defendant No. 1, who was legally competent to take the possession. By denying the other allegations of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the suit.