SANT SINGH Vs. KRIPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, impugns a judgement and decree dated 14.9.1979 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, accepting the appeal filed by the respondents, thereby reversing the judgement and decree dated 5.4.1977 passed by the Sub Judge, IInd Class, Amritsar, and as a consequence dismissing the suit for declaration and possession filed by the appellant.

(2.) Respondent no.1 Kirpal Singh s/o Sant Singh was owner in possession of a house measuring 1 kanal 4 marlas. He sold this property to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 500/- by way of a registered sale deed dated 1.6.1960 and transferred possession to the appellant. It appears that before the appellant could approach the revenue authorities to sanction a mutation, consolidation proceedings commenced in the village, and the land purchased by the appellant which was assigned Khasra No.108, was allotted to one Kirpal Singh s/o Sudagar Singh. Repartition proceedings of consolidation were challenged by one Ganga Singh. The Additional Director, Consolidation, after considering the matter in its entirety, directed allotment of Khasra No.108 to respondents no.1, 2 and 3 and retrieval of proportional land from them. Taking advantage of this order, defendant no.1 is alleged to have taken possession of the suit property. The plaintiff, therefore, had no option but to file the instant suit for declaration of his ownership and in the alternative for possession. The respondents admitted the sale deed but denied that the suit property was the property sold vide sale deed dt.1.6.1960. It was asserted that the property sold to the appellant was allotted to one Kirpal Singh s/o Sudagar Singh, during consolidation. The appellant, therefore, had to seek his remedy against Kirpal Singh s/o Sudagar Singh and not against the respondents. It was also asserted that as the property was allotted during consolidation, the suit should be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try this suit ? OPD.