ISHWAR SINGH Vs. SAWARU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs (now appellants) filed a suit for possession of 10 kanals and 5 marlas of land (detailed in the plaint) situate in village Majra, Tehsil Una on the allegations that land measuring 27 kanals and 15 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 325 and 399, of jamabandi for the year 1882-83 was in the occupancy tenancy of one Labha (pro-decessor in interest of the plaintiffs. Labha co-opted Jodh Singh (predecessor in interest of the defendants as a non-occupancy tenant for cultivtion purposes. Jodh Singh continued cultivating the land as a non-occupancy tenant. Subsequently his successors in interest/heirs were cultivating the land as non-occupancy tenants and they were assigned separate khasra numbers for cultivation. The defendants continued cultivating the land in dispute as nor-occupancy tenants under the plaintiffs. Consolidation took place in the village and during c consolidation the defendants got some changes effected in the revenue records with the connivance of the patwari. The defendants are denying the title and ownership of the plaintiffs. Due to the denial the relationship between the parties as landlords and tenants has come to an end and the possession of the defendants on the disputed land is illegal and unauthorized. The plaintiffs have become owners of the disputed land by virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Act No.8 of 1953. The suit was filed in the Court of Sub Judge, Una on 21 -5- 1964.

(2.) The defendants (now respondents) denied the allegations of the plaint and alleged that Labha had gifted the disputed land along with other land to Jodh Singh. Labha and Jodh Singh were relations. Jodh Singh and his successors including the defendants remained in possession of the land as non-occupancy tenants till date. If the plaintiffs possessed any rights in the land then the same had come to an end because of the recent legislation. It is alleged that a partition took place in 1893-94 in which Khasra Nos. 325 and 399 were allotted to Jodh Singh. Jodh Singh and his successors continued in possession of the land after partition as occupancy tenants and the land revenue was also paid by the defendants. The consolidation proceedings have not affected the interests of the defendants and this Court has no jurisdiction to order the eviction of the defendants. The plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit and the suit is not maintainable.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 16-11-1964: