RAJA RAJINDER CHAND Vs. SUKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are six appeals by the plaintiff Raja Rajinder Chand, the superior landlord (ala-malik) of Nedaun Jagir in the district of Kangra. He brought six suits in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kangra for a declaration that he was the owner of all pine (chil-pinus Iongifolia) trees standing on the lands of the defendants within the said Jagir and for a permanent injunction restraining the latter from interfering with his rights of ownership and extraction of resin from the said trees. He also claimed specified sums as damages for the loss caused to him from the tapping of pine trees by different defendants from March 24, 1940, up to the date when suits were brought. The defendants, who are the adna maliks (inferior landlords), pleaded that they were the owners in possession of the lands on which trees stood, that the trees were their property, and that the plaintiff had no right to the trees nor had he ever exercised any right of possession over them.

(2.) Three questions arose for decision on the pleadings of the parties. The first question was - whether all pine trees standing on the land in suit were the property of the plaintiff, i.e., the present appellant. The second question was one of limitation, and the third question related to the quantum of damages claimed by the appellant.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, who dealt with the suits in the first instance, held that the present appellant had failed to prove his ownership of the trees. He further held that the suits were barred by time. On the question of damages, he hold that if the appellant's claim to ownership of the trees were established, some of the defendants in tour of the suits would be liable for small amounts of damages. In view, however, of his findings on the questions of ownership and limitation, he dismissed the suits. Raja Rajinder Chand then preferred appeals from the judgment and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge, and the appeals were heard by the learned District Judge of Hoshiarpur. The latter reversed the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of ownership and held that the present appellant had established his right to the trees in question. He also reversed the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of limitation, but accepted his finding as to damages. Accordingly, he allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge, and gave the appellant the declaration and order of injunction he had asked for, as also damages in four of the suits as assessed by the learned Subordinate Judge. The defendants then preferred second appeals to the Punjab High Court. On the main question as to whether the present appellant had been able of establish his right to the trees, the learned Judges of the High Court differed from the learned District Judge and, agreeing with the learned Subordinate Judge, held that the present appellant had not been able to establish his right to the trees. On the question of limitation, however, they agreed with the learned District Judge. In view of their finding that the appellant had failed to establish his right to the trees, the appeals were allowed and the suits brought by the appellant were dismissed. The High Court gave a certificate that the cases fulfilled the requirements of S. 109 (c) and S. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These six appeals have come to this Court on that certificate. We have heard these appeals together, as the questions which arise are the same. The present judgment will govern all the six appeals.