A tenant's deposit of sale consideration without formal confirmation can result in deemed ownership due to administrative delay, affirming tenant rights under relevant land tenure acts.

JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

The appellant/defendants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.02.1997 rendered in the case titled 'Madan Lal and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others' by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. By the said judgment, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondents/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1995 passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs had been partly decreed and partly dismissed.'

1.1. The grievance of the appellants/defendants is that the Courts below have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of pleadings, evidence on record, and in applying well-settled legal principles, thereby resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

2. For proper appreciation of the controversy, the foundational facts may be briefly noticed as under:-

'The dispute pertains to 100 kanals of land originally belonging to the Provincial Government, allotted to Nanak under Section 20-B of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 . He cultivated the land as tenant until its transfer to him on 26.02.1973 for Rs.500/-, which he duly deposited. Though Nanak became owner in possession, the revenue record was never corrected from tenancy to ownership. By a registered will dated 21.09.1984, Nanak bequeathed the land to the plaintiffs. The defendants, relying on erroneous revenue entries in their favour, sought to auction the land, compelling the plaintiffs to file the present suit seeking declaration of ownership and protection against illegal alienation.'

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein they admitted that the suit land had been leased to Nanak s/o Bundi and was transferred to him on 26.02.1973 for a consideration of Rs. 500/-. However, they contended that the transfer was subject to confirmation by the Settlement Officer (Sales) and, therefore, the suit was premature. The defendants further challenged the Will dated 21.09.1984 executed by Nanak in favor of the plaintiffs, asserting that it was illegal, void, and uncertain. Additional legal objections were raised in accordance with the issues framed, and the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a replication, in which it reiterated and reaffirmed all the material allegations contained in the plaint, specifically traversing and refuting the various pleas and defenses raised by the respondents in their written statement. Having carefully considered the pleadings, documents, and contentions advanced by both sides, the Court proceeded to frame the following issues for determination, so as to effectively and comprehensively adjudicate the rival claims and defenses raised in the present dispute, which are as under:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as alleged in the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

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

5. Relief.

5. Both sides were granted adequate opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective stands. Upon conclusion of the trial and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Senior Sub-Judge partly decreed and partly dismissed the suit. The appellants, being aggrieve