THAKAR SINGH Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts leading to these restitution proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure are that the land in question was sold by Upar Singh on 23rd September, 1955, to Paramjit Singh who on 3rd February, 1956, sold it in favour of Thakar Singh. Suit for possession by pre-emption filed by Ajaib Singh and Mohan Singh sons of Ishar Singh and Sadhu Singh son of Sunder Singh was decreed. Thakar Singh's appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, Amritsar on 5th February, 1958. The three pre-emptors above named took out execution of the decree and were successful in getting possession of the land on 12th August, 1958. Regular Second Appeal No. 279 of 1958 preferred by Thakar Singh was accepted by this Court on 19th January, 1966, the decree passed in favour of the pre-emptors above-named was set aside and their suit was dismissed. Thakar Singh then applied under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of possession of the land to him.

(2.) During the pendency of the regular second appeal in this Court Upar Singh was found to be a big landowner, the land in dispute was declared surplus and the Collector under the provisions of the Punjab Security Land Tenures Act allotted it in favour of Ajaib Singh and Karnail Singh, sons of Ishar Singh and Karnail Singh son of Mohan Singh. These persons being in possession were made parties to the present restitution proceedings. Their objection mainly rested on the orders of allotment made in their favour by the Collector. Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Amritsar disallowed the objections and ordered restoration of possession of the land to Thakar Singh. Feeling aggrieved the two, Karnail Singh and Ajaib Singh preferred separate appeals which were accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar. Thakar Singh had filed the present appeal and also Execution Second Appeal No. 196 of 1970. Since common questions of law and fact are involved, learned counsel for the parties desired that they be disposed of by the same judgment.

(3.) During the pendency of these appeals the orders of allotment made by the Collector in favour of Karnail Singh son of Ishar Singh and Karnail Singh son of Mohan Singh were cancelled. On this score learned counsel for Thakar Singh appellant stated that he would not press the appeal against them. The request made by the learned counsel for Thakar Singh that the appeals with respect to the above-said two Karnail Singhs be dismissed as withdrawn, is hereby allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.