ILIAS Vs. BASHIR AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs suit has been decreed by both the courts below claiming a decree of declaration that they have become the owners under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights), Act, 1952, Punjab Act No. VIII of 1953 (for short the Act) as they had acquired the occupancy rights and claimed consequential relief of possession as they had been unlawfully disposed by the defendants. In this second appeal by the defendant, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, the point of limitation and that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they had acquired the occupancy rights, have been taken up. On the aforesaid three questions of law, the appeal was admitted. However, Shri Sarin wants to add one more ground, namely that the appellant, who is one of the defendant, had purchased the land in dispute from its previous landowners for a consideration of Rs. 7000/- and therefore, the sale should be protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short the T.P. Act) as a bona fide purchaser for consideration.

(2.) The plaintiffs pleaded in the suit that they have been in possession of the land in dispute for three generations under the defendants and their predecessors in-interest as tenants with an understanding that they would not be ejected and they never paid rent but only paid land revenue and Cesses due to the Government and thus acquired occupancy rights under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 (for short the 1887 Act) and by virtue of section 3 of 1952 Act acquired the status of owners and since they were dispossessed within 12 years of the suit, hey were entitled to decree for possession.

(3.) It is true that the suit for acquisition of occupancy rights, lies before the Revenue Court under section 77(3)(d) of the 1887 Act, but after the coming into force of 1952 Act, if a tenant who want to claim ownership on the basis that he is owner as having acquired occupancy rights, civil suit is competent. This view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Ami Lal v. Financial Commissioner, 1972 74 PunLR 96. In this case also the plaintiffs are seeking declaration that they have become owners under the 1952 Act, as they have acquired occupancy rights and on that basis have claimed possession. A declaration of ownership and decree of possession can only be granted by a Civil Court and not by a Revenue Court. Hence, findings of the two courts below that the civil suit is competent and it has jurisdiction to try the same are upheld.