JAGDEV SINGH Vs. HAZARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Succinctly the facts giving rise to this application are that Jagdev Singh appellant was a big landowner. He gave the land in dispute measuring 165 Kanals 6 marlas to his divorced wife Karanjit Kaur in a family settlement dated March 11, 1969. On March 28, 1972, Jagdev Singh suffered a decree in favour of her. On September 13, 1973, another decree was passed in favour of Hazara Singh on the admissions made by Karanjit Kaur. It is averred that on October 17, 1975, Jagdev Singh appellant challenged the decreed September 13, 1973, passed in favour of Hazara Singh and further sought a declaration with respect to his ownership. Hazara Singh is alleged to have conceded the said suit. However, Jagdev Singh accepted Hazara Singh as owner on a surety stood by Hazara Singh and also before the Collector, Land Reforms, Nabha, in 1976 where the proceedings for surplus were pending. The revenue entries showed Hazara Singh to be owner in possession till 1977 when the Khasra gridawaries were corrected. The correction order was challenged and the case is still pending before the revenue authorities. However, in the meanwhile Jagdev Sigh filed a suit for injunction against Hazara Singh. When the temporary injunction was declined and the appeal was dismissed against the said order, he withdrew the suit. He repeated the said act in 1982. In the meanwhile, in 1977, in the suit out of which this appeal arises, Hazara Singh sought an injunction against the appellant. The trial Court finding the respondent not to be the owner dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court found that the respondent is in possession and, therefore, directed the appellant not to interfere in his possession. The appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge was admitted and status quo was maintained with respect to the possession. D.V. Sehgal, J. vide order dated October, 1, 1987, clarified that the respondent was in possession and status quo meant that the appellant would not interfere in his possession. A review was preferred against the said order which was dismissed. It is second review application and in the alternative for the appointment of receiver.

(2.) The facts stated above have not been disputed at the Bar.

(3.) The counsel for the applicant states that the land is lying barren and the applicant is suffering loss on account of that. A local commissioner was appointed. He reported that the land is lying barren and both the parties claim to have sown some scattered crop in about 12 marlas of land. The counsel for the appellant contents that all these transfer transactions were made by the appellant who in fact is the real owner with an intention to save the land from the surplus pool and now it is within the permissible area of appellant.