(1.) This judgment would dispose of R.S.A. No. 378 of 1959, and S.A.O. No. 9 of 1958. Both these appeals arise out of a suit brought by Duni Chand, plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that he is in possession of 19 kanals 8 marlas of land leased to him by the landlord Raja Harminder Singh of Dada Siba in Kangra District.
(2.) The estate of Raja Harminder Singh was originally under the Court of Wards and it was given on lease to the appellant Chaudhri Ram in the years 1951-52 and 1952-53. While the estate was still under the Court of Wards, the plaintiff Duni Chand took the lease of the land in auction for the year 1953-54. It is the case of Duni Chand that he acquired peaceful possession of the land from Chaudhri Ram who delivered it voluntarily. On the other hand, it is asserted by Chaudhri Ram that he was forcibly disposed. Nothing really turns on the question whether the possession was taken peacefully or by force. To seek his redress, Chaudhri Ram repaired to the Revenue Court where he filed his suit within one year of his dispossession. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 1st of February, 1955 (Exhibit D.1), decreed the suit of Chaudhri Ram and it was directed that he should be put in possession of the suit land under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.
(3.) Thereafter, the present suit was instituted by Duni Chand for a declaration that he is in possession of the suit land and is not liable to be evicted. It was pleaded by Chaudhri Ram that the suit was not triable by Civil Court and in any case it was barred under the provisions of Section 11 and Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. A plea of limitation was also raised. The learned trial Judge found that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit but it was barred under the rule of res judicata. The trial Judge further held that the decree of the Revenue Court was a final adjudication between the parties and the matter could not be re-agitated. The question of limitation was decided in favour of Duni Chand, plaintiff. In the appeal preferred by Duni Chand, Bakshi Manohar Singh, District Judge, took a different view and held that as no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, the suit could not be tried by a Revenue Court. The plea of res judicata, according to the District Judge, was not available and the suit was, therefore, remanded to the trial Court for decision on merits. S.A.O. 9 of 1958, is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated 20th of January, 1958, remanding the suit under Order 41, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure.