BALU Vs. UDE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dated December 14, 1966, by which he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) Briefly the case of the plaintiffs was that they were real brothers and owned Killa No. 225/12 situated in village Bhalot, where consolidation was completed in 1953. The defendant, it is alleged, filed an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and the Additional Director, Consolidation, vide his order dated October 30, 1963, allowed him a path from Killa No. 225/12. They averred that the order was passed after about 11 years from the date when the consolidation had completed and they were not given any land in lieu of the land which was taken away from their plot as passage for the defendant and consequently, the order of the Additional Director was without jurisdiction. They filed a suit praying that a permanent injunction be given against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the disputed land. The defendant contested the suit and, inter alia, pleaded that the order was within jurisdiction of the Additional Director, Consolidation, and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial Court held that the order had been passed by the Additional Director under Section 42 of the Act after a period of 11 years of the completion of the consolidation proceedings and consequently it was void and without jurisdiction and that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. In view of the aforesaid finding, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The defendant went up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, who reversed the judgment of the trial Court on both the questions and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. They have come up in appeal against his judgment to this Court.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal, Shankar, plaintiff-appellant died and an application was filed by Balu appellant praying that he was the legal representative of the deceased appellant, and be treated as such. That application was allowed by this Court on April 7, 1971.