MAN SINGH Vs. SUBE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For decision of the points of law involved in this appeal, a detailed narration of events is necessary.

(2.) The appellants Man Singh and Badlu described as tenants-at-will of the land in dispute measuring 22 kanals 18 marlas in the Jamabandi of 1953-54, claim to be in possession of this land as tenants since 1932. The land had devolved on Diwana and others as occupancy tenants and had been mortgaged with possession by them in favour of Raghunath and others in 1925. When the occupancy tenants became full owners under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act VIII of 1953, the land was sold by them in favour of the respondents Suba and Risal Singh by means of a registered sale deed of 16th of March 1957. Suba Singh and Risal Singh instituted a suit against the mortgagees for redemption of the land and a decree was passed in their favour on 16th of May, 1957. In execution of this decree, the respondents Suba Singh and Risal Singh were delivered symbolical possession. The present suit was instituted by the appellants Man Singh and Badlu for a declaration, that being still in possession as tenants of the mortgagees they are not liable to ejectment in execution of the decree for redemption passed in favour of the respondents on 16th of May, 1957. It may be mentioned at this stage that a similar objection was raised by the appellants in execution proceedings and was rejected by the order of 27th of August, 1958, in which it was held that the respondents decree-holders were entitled to eject the plaintiffs-appellants from the suit land. The present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs thereafter on 22nd of December, 1958.

(3.) Broadly speaking, two substantial points arise for decision in this case. The first one relates to the legal competence of the plaintiffs to resist ejectment and secondly, whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred under the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Judge decided both these points in favour of the respondents and against the plaintiffs. The District Judge in appeal agreed with the trial Judge that being tenants of the mortgagees the appellants were not entitled to any protection from ejectment by the vendees of the land. On the second question, however, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that being an independent cause of action the appellants could pursue it although their similar objections in execution proceedings had been rejected. In view of his decision on the first question, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal.