RANGA SINGH Vs. GURBUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff Ranga Singh whose suit has been dismissed by the trial Judge and also by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, in exercise of his appellate powers.

(2.) THE pertinent facts of this litigation may be briefly narrated. Lal Singh, father of Gurbux Singh and Chogath Singh defendants-respondents, had mortgaged with possession land measuring 35 bighas situated in village Attari of District Lahore, now in Pakistan, in the year 1943, for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of Ranga Singh. After partition, the suit land measuring 20 bighas and 2 biswas was allotted to Ranga Singh in lieu of the land which had been mortgaged with him by Lal Singh. Ranga Singh actually took possession of this land in the year 1953. Subsequently, Gurbux Singh and Chogath Singh obtained a decree for possession by redemption of this land from the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Sirsa, on 18th of December, 1957, on the allegation that some land of Lal Singh had been mortgaged in Pakistan with Raj Kumar, Balwant Rai and Kundan Singh (son of Ranga Singh) for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, According to the plaintiff, the mortgage in respect of which a redemption decree was obtained by Gurbux Singh and Choguth Singh was different from the mortgage of 1943 in lieu of which the suit land had been allotted to the plaintiff. Both the trial Judge and the first appellate Court have found that the plaintiff had not established his mortgagee rights in respect of the land which is now in his possession and have accordingly dismissed his suit. I may mention that in the decree of 18th of December, 1957, in which Ranga Singh was a party, the Court had made a direction that he should file a separate action to establish his mortgagee rights, and in consequence the present suit has been brought for an injunctive remedy to restrain the defendants from taking possession of 20 bighas and 2 biswas of land now in the plaintiff's occupation, in village Khairpur, Tehsil Sirsa,

(3.) BOTH the Courts below have held that the civil Courts cannot entertain the present suit the matter having been decided by a competent authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, Section 36 of which lays down that