RSA No.2110 of 1984

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA No.2110 of 1984

Date of Decision: 16.02.2010

Om Parkash

..Appellant

Vs.

Salaga & Ors.

..Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma

Present:

Mr.O.P.Goyal, Sr. Advocate,

with Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate,

for the respondents.

---

1.

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may

be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in

Digest?

---

Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)

This appeal by the plaintiff/appellant is directed against the

judgment and decree dated 28.4.1984, passed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Faridabad, vide which suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant

RSA No.2110 of 1984

2

was dismissed.

Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration, to the effect that

the plaintiff along with proforma defendants have become occupancy

tenants of the suit land described in para No.4-A & 4-B of the plaint as per

their respective shares described and recorded in the jamabandi for the year

1974-75, therefore they are owners in possession of the suit land.

Suit was filed on the pleadings that the plaintiff/appellant was

recorded as tenant Bhondedar qua the land detailed in paras No.1-A and 1-

B of the plaint, measuring 116 kanals 14 marlas. The plaintiff claimed

ownership on the basis of decree passed in suit No.348 of 1956 decided on

25.6.1958 by the learned Assistant Collector First Grade, Palwal. It was

pleaded that in pursuance to the passing of the decree by the Assistant

Collector First Grade, land was partitioned among the co-sharers vide

order dated 20.11.1960.

Suit was contested, by raising preliminary objections regarding

the maintainability, estoppel, collusive nature and the jurisdiction of the

court to try the suit.

On merit, averments made in the plaint were denied. It was

denied that the plaintiff and defendants No.5 to 8 were tenants of the land in

suit. Partition of the suit land was also denied. Defendants No.5 to 8 also

denied that any written or oral admission was made qua the rights of the

plaintiff/appellant. Defendants also denied the averment that the allotment

of land, was made to the plaintiff and proforma defendants. Stand taken by

the defendants/respondents was that the plaintiff/appellant was in

RSA No.2110 of 1984

3

possession of the land in his capacity as Bhondedar, which could not

mature into ownership under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of

Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952.

Defendants No.7 and 8 also contested the suit filed by the

plaintiff.

On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the

following issues:-

1.

Whether the plaintiffs and defendants No.5 & 6 have

become owners of the suit land on the grounds stated in

the plaint? OPP

2.

If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs have no

locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

3.

Whether the suit is collusive between the plaintiffs and

defendants No.1 to 6? OPD

4.

Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the

matter in dispute? OPD

5.

Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their acts &

conduct for filing the present suit? OPD

6.

Whether the suit is barred under the principles of res

judicata (Issue objected to).

7.

Whether the order of ACIG dated 22.1.79 is liable to be

set aside on the grounds stated in the plaint, if so its

effect?OPP

8.

Relief.

RSA No.2110 of 1984

4

On appreciation of pleadings and evidence, learned trial court

came to the conclusion that the plaintiff and defendants No.5 and 6 had

become the owners of the suit land, in view of their status of Bhondedar

which matured into complete ownership, by treating them as occupancy

tenants.

On issue No.2, it was held that the plaintiff/appellant had locus

standi to file the suit. Suit was held to be not collusive. Learned trial court

also held that the civil court had jurisdiction to t