RAJA RAM Vs. BRIJ LAL
LAWS(P&H)-1954-8-17
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 04,1954

RAJA RAM Appellant
VERSUS
BRIJ LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is a defendant's appeal against an appellate decree of District Judge Maharaj Kishore reversing the decree of the trial Court and thus decreeing the plaintiff's suit.
(2.) Brij Lal, Gopi, Khiali and Nagji, who were the occupancy tenants of the land in dispute, sold their rights to Chuni for Rs. 1,700/-. Raja Ram minor through his guardian brought a suit for pre-emption and obtained a decree for possession and subsequently got into possession. Ayaz Mohammad who was the landlord brought a suit to get the sale declared invalid under Section 56 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The vendors, the vendees and the pre-emptors were all made parties to the suit in the Revenue Court. On the 21st December, 1946 the defendants, guardian of the minor Raja Ram and Brij Lal on behalf of the original vendors made statements in the Revenue Court. The former stated that the land had been returned to the original vendors and they had agreed to pay Rs. 1,700 and therefore, the mutation of the 21st June, 1946 be considered cancelled. Brij Lal then made a statement that he had taken possession of the land and had agreed to pay Rs. 1,700 and the sale dated the 21st June be cancelled. Upon this, instead of dismissing the suit, as it should have been done because the original tenants had taken back possession of the occupancy rights, the Assistant Collector passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff and ordered that possession be given to him. From the record it appears that possession was given to Ayaz Mohammad, but the District Judge held that possession was never as a matter of fact taken by Ayaz Mohammad. The present plaintiffs then brought a suit against Ayaz Mohammad for possession and succeeded, but when the possession was sought to be taken the present defendant Raja Ram was found to be in possession and he resisted and, therefore, the present suit was brought.
(3.) The chief question for consideration which arose before the learned Judge was that the decree, which was obtained by Ayaz Mohammad on compromise which was entered into by the guardian ad-litem of the minor Raja Ram and as no permission of the Court was taken as required by Order 32 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was void.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.