DHAN RAJ Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two second appeals have been preferred by the same defendant Dhanraj and are directed against one judgment of the District Judge, Ganganagar, dated the 16th April, 1965 in a suit for declaration and possession. Both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this one judgment.

(2.) THE circumstances which give rise to the present appeals briefly stated are these: In village Bolawali, which is within the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, Jandawala, there are two plots of land bearing No. 640 and 641. Kashi Ram respondent in civil appeal No. 241 of 1965 purchased plot No 640 from the Gram Panchayat on the 15th March, 1957. His case is that he was put in possession but the defendant Dhanraj unlawfully dispossessed him. Likewise Hariram, who is a son of Kashiram purchased plot No. 641 from the same Gram Panchayat and he also alleges that he was put in possession of the said plot of land but came to be dispossessed by the defendant Dhanraj, who is an appellant in both these appeals. Proceedings under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started by Dhanraj which ended in his favour. This necessitated both Kashiram and Hariram to institute two civil suits for declaration and possession of the plots of land bearing Nos. 640 and 641 respectively. THE defence of Dhanraj was that he was in possession of the said plots of land for some 7 or 8 years and that he never dispossessed Kashiram or Hariram. His other plea was that the purported sale-deed by the Gram Panchayat, Jandawala was a collusive transaction between Sarpanch Vichitrasingh, Secretary Khemchand and the two plaintiffs, namely Kashiram and Hariram, and had not the effect of transferring the property to the plaintiffs. THE Civil Judge, Hanumangarh, decided the suits in fa\our of the plaintiffs. Defendant Dhanraj preferred two appeals and both of them were disposed of by the learned District Judge by one judgment dated the 16th April, 1965, holding inter alia that it was not open to Dhanraj to challenge the title of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs having title in their favour they were entitled to succeed as against Dhanraj who was a rank trespasser. Dhanraj is still dissatisfied and has come up in second appeals against both the decrees passed by the District Judge, Ganganagar.