The Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act No. 8 of 1953) conferred share in shamlat land to occupancy tenants who acquired proprietary rights under the Act, and the reference to the Presidents Act No. VIII of 1951 in the mutation records did not deprive them of this right.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the suit decreed by the trial court was reversed in appeal.

2. The plaintiffs filed suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the allegation that land comprised in khewat Nos. 392 to 394 measuring 126 kanals 2 marlas as per details given in Schedule B of the plaint is recorded as owned by Shamlat Patti Bhawani Singh Hasab Rasad Qabza Zamin as per entries in the jamabandi for the years 1966-1967, The plaintiffs further averred that the defendants and other persons mentioned in the list A attached to the plaint are owners /co-sharers and thus entitled to get the same partitioned. On an application filed before the Assistant Collector I Grade to get the joint land partitioned, question of title was raised and so the parties were directed to get it determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Hence this suit

3. Basis of the claim of the plaintiffs is that they were occupancy tenants and became owners of the land in their possession in view of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1951, and thus, have become co-sharers and entitled to claim a share in respect of shamlat land corresponding to the land in their ownership

4. Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed a written statement and raised preliminary objections, i e., the suit is barred by time; that all those persons who were necessary parties have not been included in the list appended with the plaint. On merits, it was stated that there are other persons who were also owners in the Shamlat Patti, but their names have not been mentioned in the list.

5. Some other defendants also filed written statement and pleaded that Shamlat Deh in State of Haryana vests in the Gram Panchayat/Notified Area Committee. They further averred that a part of shamlat land belonged to Muslim Biswedars whose share now is owned by Union of India, which is also a necessary party. They further challenged the right of the plaintiff to seek the partition or the declaration.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are co-sharers in Patti Bhawani Singh and are entitled to get the suit land partitioned ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD

5. Whether some Muslims are necessary parties in this suit ? If so, whether the President of India is a necessary party in the suit? OPD

6. Whether the suit land vests in the Notified Area Committee, Sohna ? If so, to what effect ?

7. Relief.

7. The trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 3 was also found in favour of the plaintiffs. Issues No. 4 and 6 were discussed together and decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Finding in respect of issue No. 5 was against the defendants. In view of the findings on the above mentioned issues, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed for.

8. Before the appellate Court, the findings recorded by the trial Court were assailed on the ground that the plaintiffs who were occupancy tenants acquired the status as proprietors by virtue of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1951 (Presidents Act No. VIII of 1951) which Act did not envisage acquisition of share in the shamlat land corresponding to the land in their possession and thus, the plaintiffs cannot in law be deemed to be co-sharers in the land of Shamlat Patti Bhawani Singh. Reference was made to mutation sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff, which too made mention of Act No. VIII of 1951. The lower appellate Court after referring to Section 3 the Presidents Act No. VIII of 1951 came to the conclusion that the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to share in the shamlat land is without any basis. The lower appellate Court further held that S