Bakhshish Singh and Another vs Rajinder Singh and Others

Adarsh Knmar Goel, J.—Plaintiff-appellant No. I filed a suit for possession against defendant No. 1, now represented by the legal heirs, on the ground that the defendant was a tenant and since he converted the purpose of tenancy from agriculture to residential, the lease stood forfeited and the plaintiff was entitled to possession. Plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit land from defendant No. 2 who was plaintiffs son-in-law. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit on the ground that there was no valid sale in favour of the plaintiff and no consideration having passed he could not file the suit. It was further contended that there was no forfeiture of the lease as the purpose of lease continued to be agriculture and in any case jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred u/s 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

The Courts below found that the sale deed Exhibit P.1 in favour of the plaintiff was void. The same having been executed by the son-in-law in favour of father-in-law without any consideration and only with a view to set up the plaintiff in place of the original owner. Before the lower Appellate Court, defendant No. 2, the original owner, moved an application under Order 41 Rule 20 and Sections 107/151 of the CPC for being transposed as appellant No. 2. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the application with the observation that Amrit Pal Singh was merely arrayed as a proforma defendant. He was not a necessary party to the suit and he being not affected by the decision of the suit could not be transposed as appellant.

Counsel for the appellant has challenged the finding of the Courts below that the sale deed dated 4.8.1977 was a sham transaction and also the rejection of the application of Amrit Pal Singh for being transposed as appellant No. 2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Courts below have looked into evidence in absence of pleadings and cited certain decisions in support of this submission.

I do not find any substance in this submission nor do I find any reason to disturb the finding of the Courts below were in error in holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred u/s 77(3)(e) &(i) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 merely on the ground that the plaintiff had stated that the lease stood forfeited by change of purpose of the lease. The question whether lease stood forfeited or whether the tenant was liable to be evicted or whether any violation of conditions of lease has been place could be determined by Revenue Courts and not by the Civil Court. However, in view of the fact that the plaintiff has not locus standi to file the suit, the suit was liable to be dismissed. In this view of the matter, I express no opinion on the question whether the defendant was liable to be evicted or not.

For the reasons, this second appeal is without any merit and the same is dis missed. No costs.