KRISHAN LAL Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is against the order dated 13.11.97 passed by the

(2.) ND Civil Subordinate Judge, Jammu. In the suit, plaintiffs respondents challenged the agreement executed between the defendants and one Mst. Ananti Devi on March 13, 1992 in respect of agricultural land comprimising Kh, No. 494 measuring 5 kanals situated in village Ambaran Tehsil Akhnoor which was authenticated by the Tehsildar Akhnoor. In terms of this agreement Mst. Ananti Devi admitted that the defendants -petitioner herein were in occupation of the suit land comprising Kh. No. 481 measuring 7 kanals 19 marlas and Kh. No. 494 measuring 5 kanals as tenants in Khariff, 1971. On the basis of agreement Tehsildar passed an order that parties have entered into agreement in terms of which no levy was payable to Mst. Ananti Devi, owner of the suit land. This agreement is purported to have been executed and authenticated in presence of plaintiff -respondents, who is said to have affixed his thumb impression. 2. The agreement was challenged in the suit on the ground that it has been executed without his knowledge and only to deprive him of his rights over the land measuring 5 kanals comprising in Kh. No. 494 measuring 5 kanals which he purchased from Mangal Singh its owner vide sale deed registered by Sub -Registrar, Akhnoor on 26.7.61. This land according to him, had been continued to be in his possession. The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit land has been in their possession since 1957 -58 and it has already vested in the State u/s of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The agreement impugned, it is further pleaded was only with respect to payment of levy as the same is permissible u/s 12 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The suit was, therefore, barred u/s 25 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The trial court framed four issues. While framing the issues the learned court passed the following order on 16.7.1996.

(3.) IT appears Presiding Officers who framed the issues has either no occasion to read O. 14 and if he has ever read the provision, he never understood its mandate. What is painful is that he does not seem to have elementary knowledge about the pleadings and framing of issues. It needs hardly to be reiterated that issues arise when material preposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. A bare perusal of O. 14 would have put him on the right track that issues are of two kinds (a) issues of fact (b) issues of law. Moreover, all the issues framed by the court are issues of law which had to be decided on the basis of averments made in the plaint. Yet only issue no. 1 was directed to be tried as preliminary as if others could be decided only on the basis of evidence. Not only this, even on issue no. 1 Presiding Officer gave parties time to deposit diet expenses of the witnesses when the issue is purely of law requires no evidence. How the issues are to be decided is provided in Ruie -2 of 0.14 which reads as under: -