SADHI AND ANR. Vs. ATMA SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of S.A.O. No. 47 and 58 of 1986 as both of them are directed against the judgment dated 15th April, 1986 of the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby he set aside the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 1985 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Fatehgarh Sahib and remanded the case to the trial Court for a fresh decision. Reference to the parties shall be made from S.A.O. No. 58 of 1986.

(2.) ONLY skeletal facts would be sufficient to appreciate the point of law involved in these appeals. Jiwa Singh father of the Plaintiff -Appellants sold half share of the land measuring 110 Kanals 2 Marias out of square No. 27 in Chak No. 22 G. B. along with his share in the residential Ahata now in Pakistan to the predecessor -in -interests of the Respondents for Rs. 9,000, -vide sale deed dated 3rd March, 1941. Shadi alias Sadhu Singh Appellant No. 1, who was then a minor challenged the sale through his next friend under custom on the ground that the sale was bad for want of any legal necessity and shall, therefore, not affect his reversionary rights after the death of the alienor. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance. However, the decree was reversed by the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur, on appeal. A Regular second Appeal No. 1954 of 1945 filed by Appellant No. 1 succeeded and the decree in his favour as passed by the trial Court was restored, -vide judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated 25th June, 1947. On the partition of the country in the year 1947 the vendees migrated to India and were allotted land in lieu of that which they had purchased from Jiwa Singh in the revenue estate of Dedhran and Kandipur in tehsil, Sirhind, District Patiala as displaced persons. Jiwa Singh died on 9th November, 1977. The Appellants then filed the instant suit for possession of half share of the land allotted to the Respondents in lieu of the land alienated by Jiwa Singh on payment of Rs. 900/ - as per terms of the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore. The suit was resisted by the Respondents on various grounds but the same was ultimately decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, on 22nd February, 1985. On appeal, however, the said judgment and decree has been set aside by the learned Additional District Judge and the case has been remanded to the trial Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, S.A.O. No. 58 of 1986 has been filed by the Appellants. Their contention is that copies of the judgments and decree Exhibits P. 30 and P. 31 fully comply with the requirement of law and had been rightly admitted into evidence by the learned trial Court. The view taken to the contrary by the learned Additional District Judge is not correct and is, therefore, not sustainable. They contended that instead of passing the judgment under appeal and remanding the case to the trial Court the learned Additional District Judge should have decided the same on merits and dismissed the appeal of the Respondents.