TARA SINGH Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dated December 6, 1973.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Smt. Bhagwani, widow of Sunder Singh, was the owner of 88 bighas and 14 biswas of land situated in village Bathan Kalan, District Ludhiana, and she mortgaged it with possession with Chuhar Singh, Mita Singh and Lachhman Singh, for an amount of Rs. 2000/ -, on January 1, 1914. The mortgagees sold their mortgagee rights in favour of Waryam Singh son of Anup Singh, vide sale deed dated July 3, 1919, for a consideration of Rs. 2230/ -. Waryam Singh died and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 inherited the mortgagee rights as his legal heirs. Some land of Smt. Bhagwani was mortgaged with Ballaura Singh defendant No. 5, in lieu of which Khasra No. 1086 was allotted. Smt. Bhagwani died in the year 1960, without leaving any heirs. Her property was mutated in the name of Punjab State. The mortgaged land and Khasra No. 1086, was allotted to the plaintiffs by the State Government under Nazool Lands Transfer Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), vide order dated May 21, 1968. The plaintiffs, in accordance with the order of the Collector, deposited Rs. 2230/ - for payment to defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and Rs. 743/ - to defendant No. 5. The Collector, after deposit of the amount, served notice on the mortgagees that the land stood redeemed. He issued warrants of possession in favour of the plaintiffs in pursuance of which the plaintiffs obtained possession of the land on June 7, 1968 and an entry to that effect was made in the Roznamcha of the Patwari. Crops were standing at the time of delivery of possession. Consequently the plaintiffs also deposited an amount of Rs. 607.60 as compensation of the crops. It is alleged that the defendants filed a suit for injunction against the plaintiffs and obtained a temporary injunction against them. During that interval, the defendants, it is further alleged, took possession of the property in dispute from the plaintiffs in the garb of injunction. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession of the land.

(3.) IT is, firstly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Rules were not applicable to the property in dispute and consequently it could not to be transferred to the plaintiffs under them. I have give a thoughtful consideration to the argument of the learned counsel and find force in it. The property in dispute is situated in village Bathan Kalan, which was situated in the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union (Pepsu). In 1950, the village, alongwith certain other villages, was transferred to the State of Punjab under the Provinces and the States (Absorption of Enclaves) Order, 1950. The Third Schedule relates to enclaves transferred from an acceding State to a Province. Clause 11 contains enclaves which were transferred from Pepsu to the East Punjab. The village is shown in item No. 2 of Clause 11 (see 1950 Current Indian Statutes, Part 11, page 31 at page 38). The rules were framed in 1956 by the Government of Pepsu. The property in dispute before coming into force of the Rules in Pepsu had been transferred to Punjab. Mr. Sarin has not been able to show any notification by which the Rules were made applicable to the State of Punjab. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the opinion that the Rules did not apply to the property in dispute.