Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Shiv Dei Enterprises and another - Appellants
Versus
Udami and others - Respondents
RSA No. 1599 of 1989 (O&M)
Decided On : 25.2.2015
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act - Land Dispute - Section 18 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 - Section 18 - The court discussed the validity of the collusive purchase order obtained under Section 18 of the Act and its impact on the possession rights of the parties involved. The judgment also highlighted the significance of previous litigation and the conclusive nature of its findings in determining possession and title rights.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming possession of a land area. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had no right to interfere in his possession based on collusive purchase orders obtained under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. The trial court partially decreed the suit, and the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The lower appellate court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and that the defendants' claims of possession based on the collusive purchase orders were not valid. The court also emphasized the conclusive nature of the findings from previous litigation in determining possession and title rights.
Issues: The issues included the plaintiff's possession of the suit land, entitlement to injunction, and the validity of the suit. The court also considered the impact of the collusive purchase orders and the findings from previous litigation on the parties' possession and title rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's possession and title rights were established based on the findings from previous litigation, and the defendants' claims of possession based on collusive purchase orders were not valid. The court emphasized the conclusive nature of the previous findings in determining possession and title rights.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower appellate court's decree in favor of the plaintiff, and left the parties to bear their own costs.
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Defendants No. 12 and 1 are in second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.05.1989 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa, vide which judgment and decree dated 15.01.1987 passed by Senior Sub-Judge, Sirsa, was reversed and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in toto.
2. Facts of the case are that plaintiff-Udami filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants seeking restraint order from interfering in his possession over the suit land measuring 20 kanal 18 marla and also for possession of an area measuring 45' x 65' of Rect. No.302, Killa No.2/2 min (0-11). The case of the plaintiff was that he was an ejected tenant and was allotted 65 kanal 12 marla of land in the area of Ellenabad, which included the suit land. Possession was delivered to him by the Surplus Authorities on 23.05.1970 and Rapat No.374 was entered by the Revenue Patwari.
3. It was alleged that the suit land was previously under the tenancy of Bahadur and Bhaga sons of Shera. When they started interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, he filed a Civil Suit No.260 of 1971 against them. Bahadur and Bhaga had claimed their possession in the said suit and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 27.02.1973. In appeal the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 25.03.1974 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar. Resultantly, Bahadur and Bhaga thereafter filed RSA No.1330 of 1974 which was dismissed on 09.02.1983 by this Court.
4. Plaintiff further alleged that in the meantime Bahadur and Bhaga obtained some collusive purchase order under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act') from the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Sirsa on 30.08.1973 against the landowner (Jai Chand Lal). The said order was obtained in collusion with the owner and by taking undue benefit of that collusive purchase, they executed fictitious sale deeds in respect of suit land in favour of defendants.
5. Plaintiff pleaded that defendants had no right to interfere in his possession on the basis of such sale deeds as their vendors namely Bahadur and Bhaga themselves were not in possession of the suit land and were not even competent to transfer the same to the defendants. Plaintiff further alleged that in the intervening night of 4/5 September, 1985 defendant No.12 forcibly occupied area of 45' x 65' despite the interim order. Consequently, prayer for possession of the portion occupied by defendant No.12 was also incorporated.
6. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and denied the allotment in favour of the plaintiff because Bahadur and Bhaga were cultivating the land as owners on the strength of purchase order under Section 18 of the Act. He alleged that allotment in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled by the Competent Authority and plaintiff never remained in possession of the suit land. Rapat Roznamcha No.374 was claimed to be inconsequential as the same was a paper transaction only. He claimed himself to be the bona fide purchaser and in possession of the suit land from Bahadur and Bhaga. He had also raised construction over the portion of the suit land. Besides taking other objections, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. Other defendants also opposed the prayer in the suit by taking pleas in their separate written statements.
7. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as alleged ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD
4. Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
5. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under section 10 of C.P.C ? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
6-A. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the entire suit land at the time of filing of the suit, if so to what effect ? OPP
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
