The judgment emphasizes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suits challenging orders under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and the binding nature of orders upheld by the High Court. It also addresses the principles of res judicata and the distinction between cancellation of instruments and declaration of status or right under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this order, Regular Second Appeals No. 4060 of 2004, 4622 &3O18 and Civil Writ Petition No. 17617 of 2014 shall stand disposed of.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that all these three cases can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

3. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court has come to a conclusion that the dispute in Regular Second Appeal No. 4060 of 2004 is required to be remitted back to the trial Court for decision afresh. Hence, the detailed facts which have already been noted by the Courts below are not being repeated. Suffice to note that the plaintiffs-Rehra Ram and Others filed a suit with the following prayer:

"30. It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, as per their respective shares, as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, situated in village Liwalwali, Tehsil & Disttt. Sirsa, and the entries in the revenue records showing the contrary to it are wrong and are liable to be corrected in the names of the plaintiffs as per their respective shares, and the transfers made by Shri Het Ram in favour of Jalu and Santa vide mutations No. 134 and 135 and the orders of mutations of purchase, as detailed and described in the heading of the plaint in para No. 16 of the plaint, are null and void, arbitrary, illegal, ineffective qua the possessory and proprietary rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land, and as such are liable to be set aside and subsequent revenue records viz jamabandies, mutations and khasra Girdawari etc. are also wrong and incorrect and are liable to be corrected accordingly in favour of the plaintiffs, and as a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the land of their shares by getting the suit land partitioned till the title of all the co-sharers is cleared by the decision of the suit in hand and also restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over their specific land, mentioned in paras No. 11 to 14 of the plaint, forcibly and illegally, restraining the defendants from getting the mutation No. 424 sanctioned in their favour, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants with costs of the suit.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts & circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted to the plaintiffs ".

4. The plaintiffs, in para 3 of the plaint, pleaded as under:-

"3. That Het Ram aforesaid, out of his 1/4th share of the land mentioned above, made the following transfers:-

i) He sold land measuring 180 bighas 19 biswas of Jot Ram, Het Ram sons of Chain Sukh to the extent of 1/3rd share and Neo Nand and Narain Singh to the extent of remaining 2/3rd share, vide mutations No. 102 dated 23.1.1954,

ii) He gifted 2126/25394 share out of the above said land to his wife-defendant No.1, Smt. Parmeshwari Devi vide mutation no. 107 sanctioned on 29.9.1954.

iii) He sold land measuring 10 bighas 18 biswas to Sheo Nand son of Jhanjju, since deceased vide mutation No. 100 dated 23.1.1954.

iv) He sold land measuring 19 bighas 06 biswas to Jaswant son of Shri Gurbachan Singh, vide mutation No. 109 dated 15.6.1954.

5. By all these transfers, said Het Ram son of Ram Sukh sold away land measuring 317 bighas 09 biswas and thus, was left no interest or right in this khewat. But the jamabandi for the year of 1955-56 was wrongly prepared and aforesaid Het Ram was wrongly shown to be the owner in possession 3619.25394 shares of the total land measuring 1269 bighas 14 biswas, despite the fact that he was left with no land in this khewat after the aforesaid transfers.

6. The defendant No. 1 to 7 filed their written statement. Para 3 of the plaint was replied in the following manner:-

"3. That para No 3 of the plaint is correct that Het Ram sold 1/7 share