RICHHPAL SINGH Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant No.3 is in second appeal in a suit filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of Punjab Land Revenue Act read with Section 34 of Specific Relief Act for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(2.) THE case set up by the plaintiff Jaspal Singh is that he is owner in possession of a pucca house constructed on an area measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Rect. No. 99, killa No. 4/3 as per jamabandi for the year 1989-90 situated in village Amritsar, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa. Defendant No.1. Sajjan Singh was owner in possession of 566/1114 share in agricultural land measuring 55 kanals 14 marlas comprised in Rect. No. 70 killa No. 11 (8- 0), 20 (8-0), 21 (8-0), Rect. No. 97 killa No. 12 (8-7), Rect No. 98 killa No. 1 (8-0), 10 (8-0), 11/2 (5-18), 20/1/2 (0-10), 21/1/2 (0-19) as per jamabandi for the year 1989-90, situated in the revenue estate of same village i.e. Amritsar. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 (Sajjan Singh) exchanged their house and land and then got a decree in Civil Suit No. 492 of 1992 from the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa on 18.7.1992 by virtue of which the plaintiff became owner in possession of agricultural land. Defendant No.1filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff regarding the said land which was dismissed on 16.10.1992. Defendant No. 1. again filed a Civil Suit No. 785 of 1992 against the plaintiff and one Virsa Singh, which too, was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.1988, against which defendant No. 1. (Sajjan Singh) filed appeal No. 112 of 1998 which was pending at the time of filing of the present suit, but the appeal was dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge, Sirsa vide his judgment and decree dated 29.7.2002 and in the said suit, defendant No. 1. was not held to be owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has further averred that defendants No. 1 to 3 got entered wrong entries in the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 in respect of the land in question in which defendant No. 1 has been shown to be in possession of the land comprised in Rect. No. 98 Killa No. 1 (8-0), Killa No. 10/1 (7-16), Killa No. 11/1 (2-2), Killa No. 20/1/1 (4-0), Killa No. 21/1/2 (2-4) and defendant No. 2 has been shown in possession of land comprised in Rect No. 70 Killa No. 11/2 (2-14), 20/1 (2-14) and defendant No. 3. has been shown in possession of land comprised in Rect No. 98 Killa No. 11/2/2 (5-14), 20/1/2 (0-10), 21/1/2 (0-19). The plaintiff has further averred that entries of the land in dispute in the names of the defendants have been made unauthorisedly without any authority and against the judgment and decree dated 18.7.1992 vide which the plaintiff was declared owner in possession of the land in dispute. Thus, the plaintiff has sought a decree for declaration to the effect that he is co-owner in possession of the land in dispute in view of judgment and decree dated 18.7.1992 passed by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa in Civil Suit No. 492 of 1992 titled as Sajjan Singh v. Jaspal Singh. Defendant No. 2 did not appear despite service. Therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 3 also contested the suit of the plaintiff on similar grounds. He has asserted possession of defendant No. 1 over the land in dispute alleging that he is tenant gair marusi under defendant No. 1, and has constructed his Dhani over 2 kanals 18 marlas of land out of the land in dispute. He had filed an application for correction of khasra girdawari in respect of the land measuring 25 kanals 13 marlas out of the land in disputes in the Court of Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ellenabad on 25.1.1995 which was accepted on 29.6.1995 and correction of Khasra Girdawari w.e.f. Rabi 1993 was ordered . Defendant No. 1 filed an appeal before District Revenue Officer exercising the powers of the Collector, Sirsa, who vide his order dated 17.1.1996 remanded the case to the lower Court with the direction to visit the spot and pass a speaking order. In compliance thereof, Tehsildar Ellenabad visited the spot on 17.11.1998, enquired about the possession and decided the application on 28.12.1998 holding the possession of defendant No. 3 over 25 kanals 13 marlas land out of the suit land. Thus, possession of the plaintiff was denied and that of defendant No. 3 was asserted.