Find a Lawyer

Revision Petition No. 1958/D of 1973, decided on 4th December, 1985.

---Ss. 10 & 11--Res judicata--Suit--Petitioners-plaintiffs' previous suit was still pending adjudication when they brought present one--Both suits proceeding on same gravamen, based upon same title and not triable simultaneously--Later one had to be stayed--Regular second appeal arising out of connected suit dismissed--Present suit, held, hit by S.11, Civil Procedure Code.

--Ss. 2(2) & 25--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), -- S. 9--Suit for ' declaration that petitioners-plaintiffs were owners in possession of land in dispute--Suit-land initially allotted to respondents but they lost it in appeal filed by plaintiffs--Again on further appeal respondents' original allotment was restored and given effect to by mutation--Orders restoring land to respondents passed by concerned officers in exercise of authority vested in them by law--Land, held, would be deemed to have been transferred to respondents and there could be no warrant for view that plaintiffs got it in their own right--Suit not maintainable.

---S. 9--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.2(2) a 25--Suit regarding entitlement /allotment of evacuee land--Maintainability of suit--Land allotted to respondents by Settlement Authorities in their exclusive jurisdiction and implemented in shape of mutation in their favour as heirs /successors of deceased displaced person--Land in question belonging to an evacuee and allotted as such--Both parties claiming to be successors-in-interest of deceased displaced person and bolstering up no status other than that of displaced persons--Any determination relating to such status, their respective entitlement to allotment and any orders passed thereabout falling within ambit of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958--Civil suit, held, not maintainable.

Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Petitioners.

S. M. Masood for Respondents.

This judgment will also dispose of R.S.A. No. 248 of 1980.

2. This Revision assails the judgment /decree, dated 3-12-1983 of the learned District Judge, Toba Tak Singh, whereby he accepted the appeal and dismissed the petitioners' suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of the land in dispute.

3. The main controversy hinges round the fact as to who was the successor of the deceased Rehma dying in Patiala before Independence. Apparently he left behind two widows Mst. Zeenat and Mst. Allah Rakhi, respondent No. 4. The former was issueless whereas the latter was the mother of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Initially the land in question in lieu of his entitlement was given to all of them as his heirs but later in a checking it was cancelled and instead glotted to the plaintiff s mother Mst. Alam Bibi and another lady Mat. Fazeelat Bibi as sitting allottees. The plaintiff was able to get it from them of course, on the demise of his mother and through a transfer from Fazeelat Bibi. Besides, he alleged to have inherited some more land from Wali Muhammad, Mst. Zeenat Bibi and Mst. Jannat Bibi in lieu of which in consolidation proceedings, he was given the impugned land.

4. It was his case that Mat. rAllah Rakhi respondent was not a wedded wife of the deceased Rehmat, nor was he the father of her progeny respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as per judgment of a civil Court of Patiala. He preferred Revisions etc. upto the Board of Revenue against their heirship but ultimately failed and Hence brought a civil suit which was the subject-matter of the connected R.S.A.

5. He averred that Rehma's claim styli being unsatisfied, the respondents as heirs had no interest whatsoever in the impugned land which he got in his own right and had been exercising dominion over it by leasing it out to lessees from whom recently the respondents tried to take away possession forcibly. According to him his queries revealed that they had wrongly got the land transferred in his favour by means of Mutation No. 173, dated 26-1-1971 and sub-equently sold away a portion thereof by Mutation No. 180 of B-9-1971 in favour of defendants Nos. 5 to 6. He challenged these mutations in the present suit on the grounds of fraud, collusion with Revenue officials and for want of notice to him reiterating that the respondents were not the deceased Rehma's heirs and further that the land in question had not been allotted to him.

6. The suit was seriously contested as untenable for want of possession, proper court-fee, jurisdiction, cause of action and under section 10, C .P . C . It was denied if the plaintiff petitioner was a collateral of the deceased Rehma or that the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were not his children or the widow.

7. The trial Court decreed the suit but the learned District Judge reversed it holding almost all the issues against the petitioner-plaintiff .

8. On the petitioners own showing his previous suit was still pending adjudication when he brought the present one. There is no gainsaying the fact that both the suits proceeded on the same gravemen, namely, whether or not the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were heirs of the deceased Rehma. Both the suits were evidently based upon the same title and for obvious reasons could not be tried simultaneously. The later one A had to be stayed, but since the R.S.A. arising out of the connected sit has been dismissed today, this one shall be hit rather by section, 11, C. P. C.

9. The contention that the mutations passed in 1971 afforded a new cause of action to the petitioner, cannot be acceded to, as those were just executory of the order, dated 4-4-1968 (Exh. D.3), by which the respondents had been allowed this land by the Collector, Lyallpur, in appeal to which Fazal Muhammad plaintiff was party. They were nothing new in themselves, nor did they constitute any independent event, and, therefore, could not provide a fresh cause of action, nor did they call for any prior notice to the petitioner. The view adopted in this behalf by the learned District Judge is unexceptionable.

10. The petitioner's contention that the land in dispute had been given to him in his own right either as a claimant or an heir of a few others like Wali Muhammad, Mst. Fazeelat Bibi etc. does not seem to be very much correct. As per mutation Exh. P. 33 dated 8-1-1954, it was initially allotted to respondents Nos. 1 to 4. They lost it in appeal filed by the plaintiff Fazal Muhammad and an entry to that effect was made in R.L. II, Exh. D.1, but in a further appeal , the original allotment was restored vide order of the Collector, dated 4-4-1968 (Exh. D.3) ibid which had been given effect to by Mutation No. 173 (Exh. P.44).

11. From the above resume, it will be appreciated that the very land being a part of square No. 18 mentioned in the plaint had been restored to the respondents by the aforementioned order as also the questioned Mutation No. 173. There is no warrant for the view that the deceased-plaintiff got this land in his own right. Even if he got it, various orders restoring it to the respondents will have to be given effect to as they had been passed by the concerned officers in exercise, of authority vested in them by law, and, therefore, the land will have to be deemed to have been transferred to the respondents. Again, the finding of the learned District Judge on this point too is unassailable.

12. Last but not the least, the civil suit is not maintainable as all the abovementioned orders had been passed by the Land Settlement Authorities in their exclusive jurisdiction. The appellate order, dated 4-4-1968 (Exh. D.3) or for that matter, its implementation in the shape C of Mutation No. 173, dated 26-1-1971, were indeed reiteration of the initial allotment made in 1954 vide mutation Exh. P.33 in favour of the respondents as heirs/ successors of the displaced person Rehma deceased. The land in question also belonged to an evacuee and was allotted as such to them. Even the petitioner's case was that he too was a claimant to some extent in his own right and also an heir of the deceased Rehma.

13. It will be appreciated that in so far as both the parties claim to be the successors-in-interest of the deceased Rehma, they were bolstering up no status other than that of "Displaced Persons" as defined in section 2(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Obviously, any determination relating to such status, their respective entitlement to allotment and any orders passed thereabout fell within the ambit of the said statute for the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities. Section 25 thereof totally excluded the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Thus, it will not be open to the petitioner to bring a civil suit to claim that the respondents were not heirs of the deceased so as to get an allotment in view of the land left by him in India. The cause of action whatever on the showing of the plaintiff arose at 1971 when yet the evacuee laws were not repealed. His remedy was before the Settlement Authorities where he miserably failed all along and, therefore, could not broach this matter in the plenary civil jurisdiction.

14. As a result, the revision as also the aforesaid R.S.A. stand dismissed with costs.

M . Y . H . Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.