The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person who is not a party to the decree is not bound by the decree, and the suit filed by Tehsildar (Sales) was not competent as per the Constitution and relevant case law.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 3.3.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which the application moved by petitioner/defendant No.3 for dismissal of the suit as not maintainable by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was ordered to be dismissed.

2. Tehsildar (Sales), Ludhiana (West), Ludhiana, Sh. Paramjit Singh, filed a suit claiming the following relief: -

"Suit for declaration to the effect that transfer of the land measuring 77K-9M out of total land measuring 80 kanals bearing khata # 75/103, Khasra #6//3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 17//1/1, 1/2, 9, 10, khata # 76/1, 104/1, Khasra #6//17 as per jamabandi for the years 1991-92 situated within the revenue estate of villa. Majara khurd, Teh. & Distt. Ludhiana through mutation No.295 on the basis of sale deed bearing vasika No. 13445 dt. 12.9.97 with court orders on behalf of defendants # 4 to 9 in favour of the defendants # 1 to 3 is illegal, null & void, and is violation of terms & conditions of the conveyance deed dt. 8.9.1991 and further declaration to the effect that the court decree passed by the court of Sh. G.K. Dhir, the then Sub-Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana dt.26.11.94 in case titled as Gurdial Singh etc. v. Swaran Kaur etc. is also illegal, null & void, result of fraud and misrepresentation, collusive between the parties and is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and the compromise submitted for obtaining the said decree allegedly executed on 9.11.1994 along with agreement to sell allegedly executed by the defendants # 4 to 9 in favour of the defendants # 1 to 3 is also null & void, illegal, result of fraud and is liable to be set-aside and further declaration that the property is liable to be restored in the position as it was prior to the sanction of mutation No.295; AND for permanent injunction restraining the defendant # 1 to 3 from in any manner changing the nature or title of the suit property by way of sale, mortgage, gift, transfer or any other manner, forcibly or illegally, except in due course of law. On the basis of oral & documentary evidence."

3. On notice having been served, an application was moved by petitioner/defendant No.3, for dismissal of the suit on the ground, that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit. The suit was barred by limitation and not maintainable.

4. It was alleged in the application, that the suit has been filed on the pleadings, that the property in dispute could not be sold within 20 years to a non-scheduled caste, whereas there was no bar to alienate the property in any manner to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The pleaded case was, that the property had already been sold to defendant No. 11 Ram Chand, and mutation was also entered in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed before 12.9.1997.

5. It was also the case, that when the sale deed was executed in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 and mutation was sanctioned thereon. The case was that defendant No.3 was scheduled caste being Ramdasiya by caste and this fact has been intentionally concealed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 11.

6. Therefore, the case pleaded was; that an attempt has been made to mislead the Court, as the property was in fact sold to a scheduled caste person. It was also the case, that the property was sold about 20 years back, therefore, the suit being time barred was not maintainable.

7. The application was contested by raising a preliminary objection, that the application was technically defective, therefore, not maintainable.

8. On merit, it was pleaded, that the property in dispute could not be sold to non- scheduled caste till completion of 20 years from its transfer, therefore, defendant No.3 could not get benefit of sale. It was also the stand taken by the plaintiff, that defendant No.3 had connived with other