GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal of the Gram Panchayat of Jandwala village against whom the declaratory suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was at first decreed partially by the trial Judge but later in the appeal of the plaintiffs-respondents, it was decreed in its entirety.

(2.) The plaintiffs Sher Singh, Kehar Singh, Mehar Singh and Bachhittar Singh sons of Ala Singh instituted the present suit against the Gram Panchayat of village Jandwala and its members for a declaration that the land measuring 220 Kanals and 13 Marlas in village Jandwala was under their ownership and the defendant-Panchayat could not be declared its owner even though it was described as shamlat deh. The plaintiffs have always been shown in the revenue records as mortgagees of this land. While the consolidation operations were going on, the plaintiffs applied to the authorities under the Consolidation Act on 30th of August, 1956 that the unredeemed mortgages having subsisted for more than sixty years they have become owners on lapse of time. The consolidation authorities having declined to consolidate the land on the basis claimed by the plaintiffs, the present suit had to be brought for declaration of title. The suit was resisted on various pleas. The jurisdiction of the civil Courts was questioned; the plea of estoppel was raised and finally on merits it was denied that the right of redemption had become barred by time. The trial Judge decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs but held that proof had been adduced only with regard to the mortgage in respect of 144 kanals and 6 marlas of land. The suit was decreed for this area and stood dismissed with regard to the remainder of the land claimed in the suit. Both parties feeling aggrieved filed separate appeals which were heard by the Additional District Judge (now C.G. Suri, J.,). The learned Additional District Judge arrived at findings which are in favour of the plaintiffs on all aspects of the case and found that the entire area of the land under suit was covered by mortgages which had become more than sixty years' old. The suit of the plaintiffs was accordingly decreed in its entirety; the appeal of the plaintiffs was allowed and that of the defendant-Gram Panchayat dismissed. Mr. Jagan Nath Seth, the learned Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, has not challenged the findings of the lower appellate Court with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court nor has he pressed the point that the period of limitation had been arrested by an acknowledgment made by the appellants. The plea of estoppel is not pressed.

(3.) We are thus left with the sole question about the existence of the mortgagee rights which the plaintiffs claimed to have ripened into ownership after the lapse of statutory period of sixty years allowed for redemption. Mr. Seth has pressed two arguments before me. It is urged in the first instance that the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 , which admittedly governs the rights of the parties in this case provides in Section 3(a) that -