BASANT SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he and defendants 2 to 8 were the owners in possession of the land in dispute measuring 318 Kanals, 18 Marlas. A permanent injunction was also claimed restraining defendant 1, the Panchayat, Haboli, from interfering with their rights. So far as the identity of the land is concerned, there seems to be no dispute because in either Court, it was no body's case that the land in dispute was not the same land which was the subject-matter of partition between 19111915. The trial as well as the appellate Court have proceeded on the common ground that the land was Shamilat prior to 1915. The only divergence in the respective stands of the plaintiff and the contesting defendants has been that according to the plaintiff, the land ceased to be shamilat by reason of a partition effected in the year 1915 and the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 8 became its exclusive owners and have continued in possession of the same as such, whereas the stand of defendant 1 is that the land continued to be Shamilat The partition of 1915 was not given effect to at all and remained, more or less, a paper transaction. The precise question, that fell for determination in the Courts below, was whether the land ceased to be Shamilat after partition of 1915 or it still continues to be Shamilat. Both the Courts have come to 'a concurrent decision that the land continues to be Shamilat and that the partition of 1915 was not given effect to. The result, therefore, has been that the plaintiff's suit has failed in both the Courts below. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the decision of the Courts below and has come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) Before proceeding to deal with the arguments of the learned counsel, it will be proper to set out the findings that have been arrived at by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the land in dispute was not partitioned between the years 1911 and 1916; that the possession of the parties remained in the same fashion in which it was before 1911 and after 1916 that though there was a partition Sanad, Exhibit P.4, wherein it was mentioned that the partition had been effected in view of the order of Shri Raghunath Dass, dated 10th of May, 1915, the said order was not produced; and in any case even if the partition had taken place it was ignored for many years and the proprietors of the village did not deal with the land on the basis that any previous partition bad taken place. Three principle reasons, which prevailed with the lower appellate Court in coming to this conclusion were -