BABA GURDIAL SINGH Vs. KULWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been failed by Gurdial Singh, the plaintiff, challenging order dated August 7, 1987 passed by Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar vide which it was held that Gram Panchayat was a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit and that the suit was not properly valued for purpose of Court fee. Ad-valorem Court-fee was payable on the market value of the land in dispute.

(2.) Gurdial Singh and others, the plaintiffs, filed a suit for possession of land measuring 92 Kanals 7 Marlas described in the plaint situated in village Goindwal. They claimed to be joint owners in the land in dispute as co-sharers. The land was shamilat deh and was assessed to land revenue. This land remained in individual cultivating possession of the co-sharers before January 26, 1950. Before that, their ancestors were cultivating the land as co-sharers. The defendant Jathedar Kulwant Singh (now deceased represented by his legal heirs) was asserting that land was owned by the Panchayat and was taken on rent. This assertion was incorrect. The land was not owned by the Panchayat deh nor it could be rented out to anybody. The suit was contested on behalf of the defendant. Some preliminary objections were taken that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the civil suit. The plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. The suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that is the Panchayat of village Goindwal was a necessary party being the owner. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiffs were owners or they were in possession of the land in dispute in any capacity. The defendant claimed to be in possession of the land on behalf of the Panchayat deh. The defendant claimed to be permanent resident of the said village. He was in possession of the land at the time of filing of the suit. These allegations were controverted in the replication filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. The trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) After both the parties led the evidence, the trial Court instead of deciding all the issues only decided two points as mentioned above. Hence, this revision petition.