SHAKTI CHAND Vs. CHAMARU RAM ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal against the decree of the lower Appellate court dismissing a suit for possession has been brought by a transferee of the Plaintiffs to whom the land in dispute was sold during the pendency of the appeal in the lower Appellate court.

(2.) The Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession alleging that the Defendant Rirku (whose legal representative Chamaru has been brought on the record) executed a document dated December 22, 1964, undertaking to relinquish tenancy rights after the harvesting of the Rabi crop 1965, that the Defendant had not fulfilled the terms of the document and had insisted on maintaining possession thus contravening his undertaking, and hence it was prayed that a decree for possession should be granted. In the written statement filed by Rirku it was denied that any such agreement had been entered into by him, and it was asserted that a blank document had been signed by him on the representation that an objection had to be filed by him as tenant as the land would otherwise be acquired by the Government. It was also asserted that the agreement was without consideration and was a void transaction. The defence included the plea that the Defendant was an occupancy tenant under Punjab Act No. VIII of 1953 and that he had become owner of the land, and therefore, a civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(3.) The trial court decreed the suit, holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain it, that the agreement dated December 22, 1964, had in fact been executed by the Defendant, that the agreement had not been obtained by fraud and that the Defendant was not an occupancy tenant of the land.