HIMAT RAI Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's regular second appeal challenging the concurrent findings recorded by learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Fatehabad and Additional District Judge, Hisar vide their judgments and decrees dated 18.8.1986 and 17.9.1988, respectively, vide which the plaintiff's suit for declaration, that he is owner of the suit land with a consequential relief that defendant be restrained from effecting recovery of decretal amount on the basis of order and decree dated 23.5.1984 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Fatehabad, in case 'Himat Rai v. Kehar Singh', has been decreed.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that land measuring 47 Bighas - 2 Biswas was allotted to one Sunder Singh son of Nihal Singh by virtue of allotment No. 132. The plaintiff/respondent averred that Appellant-Himat Rai in collusion with one Kishan Singh, son of Gurdat Singh, who impersonated himself as Sunder Singh, the original allottee, purchased the suit land along with his three brothers Bansi Dhar, Diwan Chand and Puran Chand through a registered sale deed dated 18.7.1958 for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 5,000/- on the basis of which mutation No. 220 dated 31.7.1958, (Ex.P1) was sanctioned.

(3.) THE defendant contested the suit. He took up the plea that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. Plaintiff had no cause of action and the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was pleaded that defendant had purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 18.7.1958 from Sunder Singh son of Nihal Singh for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- and mutation was also sanctioned in this regard. He denied the knowledge of any criminal case having been registered against him and Kishan Singh, son of Gurdat Singh. According to defendant, plaintiff was tenant on the suit land under him on payment of 1/3rd batai, therefore, the plaintiff is not competent to challenge the title of the defendant. The defendant, however, admitted that various applications moved by him under Section 14 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 were dismissed summarily. It was submitted that the plaintiff could not acquire title of ownership by adverse possession being a tenant under the defendant. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :-