SOHAN AND ORS. Vs. SARUP AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Sohan and Ors.
Sarup And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
Harnam Singh, J. -
(1.) TO appreciate the point of law arising in these proceedings, the facts must be set out in some detail. Sohan Son of Jag Ram, Raja son of Mohan, Karta son of Kishan Lal, Surat Singh son of Ghandan and Kanshi Ram son of Shiv Ram instituted Revenue Suit No. 170 of 1946 in the Ct. of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Karnal District, against Sarup Singh, son of Sardara, Rati Ram son of Harjas, Jai Chand son of Phul Singh, Gordhan son of Ram Jas, Bakhtawar son of Nathu and Bholar son of Mugla of village Mandi, Tehsil Sanipat for the recovery of Rs. 52 being their one -fifth share in the rent of the shamilat fields known as "Chauwala" measuring 64 bighas and 16 biswas. Defts. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 contested the suit and on the pleadings of the parties the Assistant Collector fixed the following issues:
(1) Whether the pltfs. are co -sharers in the shamilat deh? If so, what is their share?
(2) Whether the defts. have realised Rs. 260 as rent?
Revenue Suit No. 170 of 1946 was a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C. In that suit the pltfs. represented the Brahmins of Panna Hansan of village Mandi, Tehsil Panipat, while the defts. represented in that suit the other tribes of Panna Hansan of village Mandi Tehsil Panipat.
(2.) ON issue No. 1 the Assistant Collector found that the pltfs. were co -sharers in the shamilat and had one -fifth share in the shamilat. On Issue No. 2 the Assistant Collector found that the pltfs. were entitled to recover Rs. 52 from the defts. Defts. did not appeal from the order passed by the Assistant Collector in Revenue Suit No. 170 of 1946. On 3 -3 -1948, Sarup Singh son of Sarda, Rati Ram son of Harjas, Jai Chand son of Phul Singh, Bakhtawar son of Nathu, Bholar son of Mughli and Lakhi son of Shiv Ram instituted civil Suit No. 62 of 1948 against Sohan son of Jagram, Raja son of Pujan, Karta son of Kishan Lal and Surat Singh son of Chandan for declaration that the defts. were not cosharers in the shamilat and for injunction restraining the deffs. from asserting rights under the decree passed by the Assistant Collector in Revenue Suit No. 170 of 1946 on 14 -10 -1947. Defta. resisted the suit pleading inter alia that civil Cts. had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the judgment of the Assistant Collector passed in Revenue Suit No. 170 of 1946 on 14 -10 -1947, operated as res judicata to the trial of civil Suit No. 62 of 1948. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Ct. fixed the following issues:
(1) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
(2) Whether the subject -matter of the suit has been decided by the Revenue Ct. and was it competent to decide finally the question involved and what is the effect of that decision?
On issue 1 the trial Ct. found that Civil Cts. possess jurisdiction to try the suit. On issue 2 the trial Ct. found that the question of the defts. being co -sharers to the extent mentioned in the decree of the Revenue Ct. was res judicata. In the result, the trial Ct. dismissed the suit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(3.) FROM the decree passed by the trial Ct. on 20 -7 -1948, pltfs. appealed in the Ct. of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal. In deciding the appeal the Senior Subordinate Judge has found that the decision of the Revenue Ct. does not operate as res judicata to the trial of civil Suit No. 62 of 1948 and setting aside the judgment and the decree of the trial Ct. has remanded the suit for trial on merits. From the order of remand passed by the Ct. of first appeal on 21 -2 -1949, defts. have come up in appeal under Rule 1(u) of Order 43, Civil P.C.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.