KARTAR SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was holding the land in dispute as a tenant under respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 obtained ex parte decree for his ejectment from Revenue Court on September 8, 1958. In execution of that decree he got possession of the property in dispute on May 5, 1959. The appellant then filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was allowed on January 6, 1960. Even though the ex parte decree was set aside, the appellant was not restored back the possession of the property which was admittedly in his possession as a tenant. Upon this he filed the instant civil suit on March 3, 1965 on the ground that he being the tenant was entitled to remain in possession of the property so long as he was not dispossessed in accordance with law. During the pendency of this suit, respondent No. 1 sold the land in favour of the remaining respondents. Before the learned trial Court an objection was raised that civil suit was barred as laid down in Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act). The learned trial Court held that the bar of Section 50 aforementioned did not stand in the way of the appellant, but since the land had been purchased by bona fide purchasers who had no notice of the rights of the appellant, therefore, no decree could be granted in his favour. The judgment rendered by the learned trial Court was challenged before the lower Appellate Court which held that since the proprietary rights had been sold to the respondents other than respondent No. 1, if the Civil Court did have jurisdiction there could be no objection in granting the appellant a decree. But on the question of jurisdiction it held that since the decree passed by the Revenue Court had been set aside it could not be held that the appellant had been ejected in execution of the decree and so the suit filed by him was not competent in view of Section 50 of the Act.

(2.) I agree with the learned lower Appellate Court that merely because property is sold to a third person during the pendency of the litigation, the transfer would not affect the rights of the appellant. In the circumstances the result of this appeal depends upon the decision on the issue of jurisdiction.

(3.) Section 50 of the Act reads as under :-