LAWS(P&H)-2019-3-503

SHANGARA SINGH Vs. THAKUR DASS

Decided On March 14, 2019
SHANGARA SINGH Appellant
V/S
THAKUR DASS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit of the respondentsplaintiffs decreed by the trial court has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) Plaintiffs Thakur Dass and Lachhman Dass sons of Labhu Ram, caste Harijan claimed possession of land measuring 23 kanals 4 marlas situated in village Jalala HB No.277, Tehsil Dasuya and comprised in Khasra No./Rect. No.20 Killa No.11/2(7-7), 12/2(1- 5) 19 (7-16) 20(4-13) 22 (2-3) as per jamabandi for the year 1980-81 on the premise that the aforementioned land was in the ownership of Malkiat Singh son of Jaswant Singh, big landowner, predecessor-ininterest of respondents No.7 to 11. During his life time had mortgaged the suit with possession vide registered mortgage deed dtd. 6/5/1960 for valuable consideration of Rs.1500.00 and accordingly, plaintiffs were put into possession. Mutation in respect of the aforesaid mortgage was also incorporated and lawful, peaceful and cultivating possession continued till illegally obtained possession of the suit land on 20/9/1982 from the plaintiffs under the guise of some allotment. The aforementioned proceedings claiming allotment were totally at the back of the plaintiffs and in violation of principles of natural justice. Despite repeated requests did not hand over possession.

(3.) Defendants No.7 to 11 supported the case of the plaintiffs by filing joint written statement whereas defendants No.1 to 6 opposed the suit and stated that Malkiat Singh son of Jaswant Singh was big land owner. Punjab Government under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 declared the suit land as surplus and all the rights of Malkiat Singh extinguished and disputed land vested in the State Government. The act of mortgage was stated to be illegal as the mortgagor did not have right to mortgage and status of the plaintiffs as mortgagees was also disputed. Objection qua jurisdiction of the Civiil Court as per provisions of Sec. 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 was also taken.