JWALA SINGH SANT SINGH Vs. PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to be able to understand the point involved in this appeal it is necessary to set out briefly the facts. Mt. Sahib Kaur, widow of Budhu, a Johal Jat of village Dhaleke in the District of Ferozepore, died leaving behind her considerable area of land. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Moga, by his order dated 9th August 1932 mutated the entire land in favour of the proprietors of Patti Chela, in which the land was situate. Some of the proprietors of the patti appealed to the Collector alleging that they were the collaterals of Mt. Sahib Kaur's husband and consequently they were entitled to the land in preference to the other owners of the patti. The Collector rejected the appeal, but by his order of 23 January 1938 directed that the land be mutated in favour of the Crown. His reasons for doing so were that Mt. Sahib Kaur had not left any legal heirs and so the land which stood in her name must escheat to the Crown.

(2.) The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by Jowala Singh and Bishen Singh, two of the Johal Jat proprietors of Patti Chela on 22nd March 1945. It was a suit in a representative capacity and the plaintiffs prayed for permission to conduct it On behalf of all the Johal Jat proprietors of the patti. The permission was duly granted. The allegations of the plaintiffs were that they were entitled to succeed to the suit land on Mt. Sahib Kaur's death, first because they were the collaterals of her husband and secondly because they were the descendants of the original founder of the patti in which the land was situate. In the alternative they alleged that even if Mt. Sahib Kaur should be taken to have died heirless, the land could not escheat to the Crown and according to custom it must go to the patti and be divided among all the persons on whose behalf the plaintiffs were suing, because they were the proprietors of the patti. The defendant denied the plaintiffs right and resisted the suit also on the ground of limitation. The trial Court framed the following two issues: (1) Whether the plaintiffs were dispossessed of the suit land within 12 years of the suit and whether the suit is within time? (2) In case the above issue is found for the plaintiffs whether the plaintiffs are the heirs of Mt. Sahib Kaur? It also framed a third issue regarding the relief.

(3.) The first issue was left undecided, but the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with costs, because the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove the second issue.