RANJEET Vs. PIRTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff Ranjit son of Chhaju has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.5.1979 passed by Addl. District Judge, Hissar, who though reversed some findings of the trial Court as contained in the judgment dated 18.11.1978, still affirmed the said judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by holding that the frame of the suit of the plaintiff was defective.

(2.) THE facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner :- Ranjit son of Chhaju filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 68 kanals being 136/313 share of the land measuring 156 kanals 10 marlas situated in the area of village Bar Chhappar against Pirthi Singh, Umed Singh, Ran Singh, Muasi, Sultan, Kapura and Bharat Singh. The parties in this case are collaterals as is evident from the following pedigree table. Dilsukh had two sons by the names of Ganga Ram and Bhola. Ganga Ram had two sons by the names of Sakhu Ram and Chhaju. Plaintiff Ranjit is the son of Chhaju. Defendant No. 1 Pirthi Singh and defendant No. 2 Umed Singh are the sons of Sakhu Ram. Defendant No. 3 Ram Singh is the son of Hira, who was the son of Bhola. Muasi, Sultan, Kapura and Bharat Singh, defendants Nos. 4 to 7 respectively, are the sons of Ran Singh son of Hira, defendant No. 3. Thus it can be said that Dilsukh was the common ancestor of the parties. He possessed 480 bighas of land which devolved upon the parties by way of succession. Uptil the year 1952-53, i.e. before consolidation, they had a joint khewat in which plaintiff Ranjit was the owner to the extent of 1/4th share. Defendants No. 1& 2 had 1/4th share jointly and Ram Singh, defendant No. 3, of the remaining 1/2 share. Consolidation took place in the village in the year 1952-53 and in that process three separate khewats were allotted by the consolidation authorities, one to Ranjit, second jointly to Pirthi Singh and Umed Singh, defendants Nos. 1& 2 and third to Ran Singh, defendant No. 3. The land allotted to the plaintiff during the consolidation was 152 kanals and 15 marlas and to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was 156 kanals and 10 marlas. The said two khewats were used to be irrigated through Mali minor. The land which was allotted to Ran Singh, defendant No. 3, was 570 kanals & 17 marlas in the area of Dabar and it used to be irrigated by Sunder Branch. It appears that subsequently Ran Singh transferred his ownership rights in the whole of the area measuring 570 kanals 17 marlas in favour of his four sons, i.e. defendants Nos. 4 to 7. The plaintiff filed the suit on 9.4.1975. On that day defendants Nos. 4 to 7 were recorded as owners of the land measuring 570 kanals 17 marlas. The plaintiff is claiming the possession of the land measuring 68 kanals on the basis of document Ex. P1 which is dated 30.3.1972. The case set up by the plaintiff is that notwithstanding the allotment of separate khewats to the parties during consolidation proceedings in the manner referred to above, the parties were in joint cultivation of whole of the land allotted during consolidation and that he was cultivating a part of the land belonging to Ran Singh, defendant No. 3, through tenants and so did defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Similarly Ran Singh, defendant No. 3, cultivated a part of the land allotted to the plaintiff during consolidation. The plaintiff also claimed that he had constructed two kothas at the cost of Rs. 5,000/- in the land which was allotted to defendant No. 3 and cultivated the same after consolidation. In this way he claimed that during the consolidation a total area of 108 acres was allotted to the parties and he was in cultivation of 27 acres. Defendant No. 1 was also in possession of 27 acres and Ran Singh, defendant No. 3, along with his sons defendants Nos. 4 to 7 was in possession of the remaining 54 acres. A dispute started when Ran Singh transferred 570 kanals 17 marlas of land in favour of defendants Nos. 4 to 7. So, on 30.3.1972 a Panch- ayat under the presidentship of Dada Bhale Ram was convened. Many persons collected in that Panchayat including the plaintiff, defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 6 and after hearing the parties, a decision was announced by the Panchayat and it was accepted by the parties and according to that decision, out of about 71 acres of land allotted to Ran Singh, defendant No. 3, in the area of Dadar, he and his sons would keep with them 54-1/2 acres of land and they would vacate 16-1/2 acres of land which will be taken possession of by defendants Nos. 1 & 2 and it will be transferred in their favour. It was further agreed that defendants Nos. 1 &2 would transfer 8-1/2 acres of land to the plaintiff out of 27 acres of land given to them in Rajbah area. The comprise was enforced through Harphul son of Hazari, Kapur Singh son of Mauzi, Munshi Ram son of Aas Ram and Munshi son of Girdhala and a memorandum Ex. P1 of the compromise was prepared and it was attested by the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 6. The case set up by the plaintiff further is that in pursuance of the said compromise he vacated 18 acres of land standing in the name of Ran Singh and under his cultivation. Similarly, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 also vacated 18 acres of land belonging to Ran Singh and Ran Singh also vacated the land cultivated by him but belonging to the plaintiff. It was also claimed that assurance was given by defendants Nos. 3 to 7 that they would get 16-1/2 killas of land transferred in favour of defendants Nos. 1 & 2 and they would transfer 68 kanals of land in favour of the plaintiff and that mutation would accordingly be got sanctioned at the cost of the plaintiff. But the defendants did not honour the assurance. Hence the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants Nos. 1 & 2 filed joint written statement. Defendants Nos. 3 to 7 also filed a separate written statement. They denied the whole story of the plaintiff including his version of joint cultivation and compromise. They denied each and every averment made by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and the trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 and 3 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. Issue No. 3 was decided against the plaintiff and the suit was held to be barred by limitation. Issue No. 4 was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. While deciding issues Nos. 5 and 8, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and the suit is not maintainable in the present form. Resultantly, these issues were again decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. However, issues Nos. 6 and 7 were decided against the defendants and finally the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.1978.