SWARAN Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in the present revision petition is as to if an appeal against the order passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kaithal was maintainable to the Court of learned Additional District Judge or not ?

(2.) THE relevant facts are that Swaran and Ram Kumar petitioners had filed a civil suit to restrain respondent-Gram Panchayat Malikpur from interfering in their possession over the suit land situated within the revenue estate of village Malikpur. It was asserted that the suit land alongwith other land was previously entered as the ownership of Gram Panchayat on coming into force the Punjab Village and Common Land Act. However, vide mutation dated 23.12.1964 the same was excluded from the ownership of Gram Panchayat on basis of the amendment in the Punjab Village Common Land and Regulation Act, 1960. Petitioner Swaran had filed a civil suit in the court of learned Sub Judge, Kaithal for a declaration and permanent injunction in respect of total land including the suit land. The suit was dismissed on 1.3.1971. An appeal was filed which was accepted by the learned District Judge Karnal on 28.10.1972. Respondent-Gram Panchayat, Malikpur was restrained by means of permanent injunction from interfering in the possession of petitioner No. 1. Ram Kumar petitioner No. 2 is the son of petitioner No. 1. They contend that they are still in actual cultivating possession of the land and the respondent has no right, title or interest therein. It is also their case the respondent in collusion with the revenue officials got a wrong entry made in column No. 9 of the jamabandi that possession of petitioner No. 2 is that of a tenant. Similar wrong entry has been made in the Khasra Girdawari. It was asserted that keeping in view the judgment and the decree passed by the learned District Judge, entries were palpably wrong and not binding on their rights. The respondent was threatening to take forcible possession of the land. Hence, the suit had been filed.

(3.) CERTAIN issues were framed and the learned Senior Sub Judge treated the issue as to if the civil court has the jurisdiction to try the suit or not, as a preliminary issue. Vide order passed on 12.9.1995 the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Kaithal held that civil court has the jurisdiction to try the case on merits; or in other words the objection of the respondent was over-ruled. The respondent preferred an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kaithal. On 26.10.1995 the order of the learned trial court was upheld. It was held that the civil court has the jurisdiction to try the suit. The appeal accordingly was dismissed.