STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Punjab, through Tehsildar (Sales) and Central Government through Collector, Hoshiarpur, being aggrieved of judgement and decree dated 16.02.1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby judgement and decree dated 01.06.1990, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Garhshankar, has been set aside, have preferred the present appeal. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that the plaintiffs i.e. Karnail Singh, Piara Singh, sons of Dilbagh Singh and Satnam Singh son of Piara Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the said plaintiffs along with defendants no.4 and 5 were owners in possession of land measuring 10 Kanals i.e., 2/ 5th share of the land as detailed in the plaint. As a consequential relief, they prayed for permanent injunction for restraining defendants no.1 to 3 from interfering in their lawful and peaceful possession and in the alternate, suit for possession of 10 Kanals out of 25 Kanals of land as detailed above.

(2.) It is pleaded that Karam Singh son of Gopal Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendants no.4 and 5 was the owner in possession of land measuring 25 Kanals. He mortgaged the same with Muslims before partition. In the year 1947, when the partition of the country took place, the suit property vested with the Central Government. They continued in possession over the property. Beant Singh died and was succeeded by Kabal Singh, Dilbagh Singh and Chanan Singh. Dilbagh Singh also passed away and was succeeded by Karnail Singh and Piara Singh i.e., plaintiffs no.1 and 2. It is further pleaded that Kabal Singh, Chanan Singh sons of Beant Singh, Karnail Singh, Piara Singh sons of Dilbagh Singh and Karam Singh son of Gopal Singh got redeemed, 10 Kanals of land out of 25 kanals of land as detailed above. Order of redemption dated 22.08.1956 was passed by the competent officer, Gharshankar. Mutation no. 2044 in this regard was sanctioned in the names of Kabal Singh and Chanan Singh etc. Rest of the 15 Kanals out of 25 Kanals of said land was put to auction in 1957. Plaintiffs and defendants no.4 and 5 were claimed to be owners in possession of the suit land. Karam Singh on his death was succeeded by Chanan Kaur, who died and was succeeded by Satna Singh son of Piara Singh, Karnail Singh, Piara Singh sons of Dilbagh Singh on the basis of a registered will dated 10.01.1979. Chanan Singh son of Beant Singh died and was succeeded by his brother Kabal Singh. Kabal Singh also passed away and he was succeeded by Gian Kaur and Parkash Kaur. Plaintiffs earlier filed a civil suit, which was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh on the same cause of action. It is pleaded that defendant no.1-Ram Asra was a very strong headed person and was threatening to take forcible possession of the land from the plaintiffs and defendants no.4 and 5, claiming to have purchased the whole land measuring 25 Kanals from the present appellants. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendant no.1-Ram Asra, resisted the suit. All the averments in the plaint were denied. It is alleged that he purchased land measuring 25 Kanals for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 06.12.1984 from the present appellants in auction proceedings. He was put in possession of the suit property and is in possession thereof since then. Defendant no.2, was competent to transfer the land to him being its rightful owner. Various preliminary objections were also raised by defendant no.1 in his written statement. The present appellants i.e. defendants no.2 and 3 also contested the suit with the averments that the land measuring 25 Kanals was mortgaged with Muslims before partition of the country. The suit property earlier vested in the Central Government. Plaintiffs were never in possession of the entire property and the same was never redeemed as alleged. The suit land measuring 25 Kanals was thus auctioned on 24.09.1984 in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (for short 'Act'). Defendant no.1 was stated to be the successful auction purchaser, who was put in possession of the property in question on 06.12.1984. Defendants no.4 and 6 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 21.05.1990.