K.C.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed by Bhagat Ram, plaintiff, against the judgment and decree dated 8.5.1980 passed by Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 25.10.1979, whereby suit for permanent injunction was dismissed, was up-held.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Gram Panchayat (Sabha), Tibba Nangal, respondent No. 1, is the owner of common land situated in Village Tibba Nangal. The Bagar grass, which had grown on some portion of the common land was sold to the appellant in an open auction for the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The grievance of the appellant is that although he had paid Rs. 1,500/-, the auction money, to Ram Ditta, Sarpanch, in the presence of Paras Ram, Misha Ram and Santu, which amount the Sarpanch had utilised for the purchase of utensils but the same was not accounted for and the Panchayat had taken steps to recover that amount by means of coercive method i.e. as arrears of land revenue, to which the respondents were not entitled. With these allegations, suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from recovering the amount of Rs. 1,500/- through coercive method was filed.
(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit. They stated that no amount had been paid by the appellant to respondent No. 2, Ram Ditta, Sarpanch as alleged and further the utensils were purchased with the funds provided by the villagers and not with the Panchayat funds. They denied, that the claim was time barred or recovery could not be effected as arrears of land revenue. They also stated that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. However, respondent No. 3 did not contest the suit. Accordingly, the following issues were struck on 28.7.1977 :- "1. Whether the plaintiff has made the payment of the amount of Rs. 1500/- to the defendant No. ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable and competent in the present form ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not triable by this Court ? OPD 4. What is the effect of non-service of notice on the defendant before filing this suit ? OPP 5. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 6. Whether the recovery of the suit amount can be effected as arrears of land revenue ? 7. Whether the claim of the Panchayat is barred by time ? OPP 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 9. Relief." ;