Bachan Kaur vs Mukhtiar Singh and Others

Iqbal Singh, J.—Jai Kaur mother of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 fled a suit against the appellant and respondent Gurnam Singh, for declaration to the effect that she is the owner in possession of 5 marlas of land out of one kanal plot situated in village Doda, District Faridkot and that the decree dated 22.5.1986 obtained by the defendant, Bachan Kaur in a suit titled as "Bachan Kaur v. Jai Kaur" decided by Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Giddarbaha is void, ineffective and not binding upon her rights. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the property in dispute and therefore, by way of amendment of plaint, she also prayed for a relief of possession of the property.

Suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement. It was stated that defendant No. 1 is in exclusive possession of the suit land as owner, the decree dated 22.5.1984 which was the subject matter of challenge in the suit, was incorporated in the revenue records and a mutation in that behalf had already been sanctioned in her favour. Stand of defendant No. 2 in the written statement was that the plaintiff had executed one more agreement to exchange the land agreeing to give 16 marlas of land to the defendant in lieu of land measuring 5 marlas already agreed to be sold by her vide earlier agreement to sell dated 15.1.985. Previous agreement was superseded and thus having come to know that the plaintiff was no more the owner of the land measuring 16 kanals, the answering defendant was well within his right to take back the possession of the land situated at Faridkot.

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

Whether the decree dated 22.5.1984 is effective qua the rights of the plaintiffs ?

Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land?

Whether the suit is within limitation?

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

Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of causes of action?

Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file this suit by her act and conduct?

Relief Issues framed on 5.10.1989

A Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the land in dispute ? OPP (re-casted)

6 A. Whether Kartar Singh father-in-law of the defendant and son of the plaintiff had purchased the land measuring 52 kanals 19 marlas in the name of the plaintiff and that it was a benami transaction ? If so, to what effect ? OPD.

6-B. Whether the suit land is allotted in lieu of the land purchased by Kartar Singh during consolidation? OPD.

All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. As a result the decree dated 22.5.1984 challenged in the suit was set aside and the plaintiff, represented by her four sons was held to be the owner and entitled to possession of the land measuring 42 Kanals 1 Maria. Suit was, therefore, decreed accordingly, by Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Faridkot by judgment and decree dated 23.12.1993. On appeal by the defendants, the lower appellate court after observing that there was no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the trial court on all the issues, dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 14.6.1996. Hence this appeal at the instance of one of the defendants.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant could not successfully assail the findings of the courts below on any issue. It has been concurrently found on appreciation of entire evidence produced by the parties that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land and was entitled to the possession thereof. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that by the impugned judgment and decree, the earlier decree dated 22.5.1984 has been set aside which was passed by the Subordinate Judge, Giddarbaha and, therefore, the suit filed in the court other than the court at Giddarbaha was bad as no other court except the civil court at Giddarbaha had the jurisdiction to try the same. On a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention is totally misplaced. It is not shown by reference to any provisions of law or otherwise, that the civil court at Faridkot had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It hardly matters, whether the suit is filed at Giddarbaha or at Faridkot. Apart from the above, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be said to be well-founded as no objection whatsoever regarding jurisdiction of the civil court at Faridkot to try the suit was raised in the written statement and it is now for first time at the second appeal stage that this question is sought to be raised. In the absence of any material or provisions of law that the civil court at Faridkot had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the contention has no merit. It may be added here that it is not disputed by any of the parties that the headquarter of District Judge is at Faridkot and Giddarbaha is under the control of District Judge. The suit, therefore, could be filed either at Faridkot or at Giddarbaha.

Learned counsel for the appellant also could not point out from any material on record that the findings recorded by the courts below are not based on evidence or have been recorded by misinterpreting the evidence. Findings on all the issues are, therefore, confirmed.

No other argument was raised.

In view of the above, I see no scope for interference with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but with no order as to costs.