RAJ MAL Vs. GARIB DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal directed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiff-appellant's suit does not appear to be well-conceived. It, hence, suffices to refer very briefly to the relevant facts.

(2.) One Faqir Mohammad, defendant-respondent No. 2, a village Chowkidar, preferred a suit for the recovery of Rs. 425/- as his Chowkidara dues against Pritam Singh and others in the Revenue Court of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur. This suit was decreed. In execution of the said decree, the land in the suit was auctioned and was purchased by the plaintiff-appellant on the 19th of June, 1962. However, Garib Dass, the son of said Pritam Singh, preferred an application under Order 21 Rule 89, Code of Civil Procedure, in the Executing Court of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hoshiarpur for setting aside the sale made in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. This application was dismissed but an appeal to the Collector against the said order succeeded and the sale in favour of the plaintiff-appellant was, consequently, set aside. The present appellant then appealed to the Court of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, which was dismissed on the 6th of January, 1964. The matter was carried in revision to the Financial Commissioner and it met the same fate on the 22nd of November, 1964.

(3.) Undeterred, the present plaintiff-appellant moved over to the civil jurisdiction and preferred the present suit seeking a declaration that the orders of the Revenue Courts were null and void as against his rights and that he was the owner in possession of the property in suit. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the matter being entirely within the jurisdiction of the revenue Courts the suit preferred by the plaintiff-appellant was incompetent. Therefore, the suit as also an application preferred to amend the same was dismissed on the 22nd of March, 1965. The appellant then preferred an appeal to the District Judge Hoshiarpur who by an exhaustive order dated the 9th of June, 1967, dismissed the same.