SHANTI DEVI AND ORS Vs. TOHIA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District judge, Dharamshala, on November 30, 1972. The facts are that on March 14, 1964, one Shri Rattan Lal sold land contained in Khasra Nos. 921/735 and 915 measuring 14-13 Kanals to respondent Tohia, in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) through a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 3000/-. At the time of this sale one Shri Darshnoo alias Darshan Lal, respondent No. 9) was recorded in possession of the land contained in Khasra NO. 921 measuring 10-16 Kanals non-occupancy tenant of 'Kisam B-3" under the vendor Rattan Lal on payment of 1/3rd of Gallabatai as rent. Defendant No. 9 then instituted a suit against the plaintiff Tohia in May 1964 (Civil Suit No. 155/73/349 of 1964) in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, for declaration that he was in possession of the land contained in Khasra No. 921 since the time of his fore-fathers as occupancy tenant and that as such he had become owner with effect from 15.6.1952 being the 'appointed day' under the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act (8 of 1953) (hereinafter called as 'the 1953 Act').

(2.) The plaintiff contested the suit and appears to have taken a number of objections in his written statement including the lack of jurisdiction in the Civil Court, non joinder of necessary parties and estoppel. He also denied that defendant No. 9 had become owner of the suit land as asserted by him in the suit. The first three pleas were rejected by the trial Court but the last one which was the subject matter of Issue No. 1 in that suit was accepted and the trial Court held that defendant No. 9 had not become owner of the suit land and thus dismissed the suit.

(3.) The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendant No. 9 and the appellate Court vide judgment dated June 23, 1966 set aside this finding of the trial Court and held that defendant No. 9 had been occupancy tenant in respect of the land in his possession since long before the coming into force of the 1953 Act and as such he had become owner of the suit land with effect from the appointed day, that is 15.6.1952.