HUKMA Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's Second Appeal whose suit for declaration was decreed by the trial Court but has been dismissed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration to the effect that they along with others were entitled to use land measuring 22 Kanals which was recorded in the revenue record as gair mumkin chhapar (pond) and hall meant for common use of the village community and was being used as such. It was further pleaded that the defendants had no personal interest in the same and, therefore, prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their aforesaid rights. In the Written statement, the defendants denied the said allegations. The trial court found that the suit land had been proved by the plaintiffs to be Bartant am which was of the entire village community and had been reserved for their common purpose. In view of that finding, the suit was decreed. The plea of the defendants, that they were the owners of the suit land was negatived. In appeal the Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the suit land fell within the definition of Shamlat deh as defined under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , and, therefore, section 13 thereof was a bar to entertain the suit. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation before the proper authorities. Aggrieved with the same, the plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even if the land vests in the Gram Panchayat being the Shamlat deh, the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit, when the Gram Panchayat was not a party to this litigation. In support of this contention, he referred to Bhaggu v. Ram Sarup, 1985 PunLJ 366.