NATHIA Vs. JAI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, dated May 19, 1973, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 54 Bighas 19 Biswas against the defendants-respondents, on the ground that he was a tenant on the said land before the same had been mortgaged by them to Harphul. On redemption behind his back, the defendants-respondents got possession of the land on June 27, 1963, from the plaintiff-petitioner. However, the plaintiff-petitioner got back the possession of the land on May 23, 1965, in pursuance of an order by the Assistant Collector First Grade, in a suit filed by him under Section 50, Punjab Tenancy Act. Subsequently, the defendants-respondents forcibly dispossessed him. Consequently, a suit for possession, out of which the present revision has arisen, was filed on March 22, 1967.

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, contended that a perusal of the averments made in the plaint and the reply by the defendants-respondents shows that the case of the plaintiff-petitioner was based on his assertion as a tenant of the land in suit, but the same was categorically denied by the defendants-respondents. In view of this, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit for possession was not barred. In support of this proposition, reliance has been placed on Raja Durga Singh of Solan v. Tholu and others, 1962 64 PunLR 837 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held -