P.D. Sharma, J. - (1.) THE following facts are pertinent for disposal of this second appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers, Karnal: Shrimati Ahokhi and her minor son Ram Saran owned 40 kanals of land situate in the revenue estate of Mohri, district Karnal. They filed an application on 2nd August, 1957, before the learned Assistant Collector First Grade for ejectment of their tenant Sunder Defendant from the above land. The dispute was compromised in that Court by the father -in -law of Shrimati Anokhi's daughter. Shrimati Anokhi and her minor son were not satisfied with the compromise and so went in appeal against the above to the learned Collector, where the said compromise was declared as null and void and the case was remanded to the learned Assistant Collector First Grade for decision on merits. The learned Assistant Collector dismissed the application on 13th February, 1958. Their appeal was accepted by the learned Collector on 18th May, 1958, and Sunder Defendant was ordered to be ejected from the aforesaid land. Sunder went in appeal against the order of the learned Collector to the learned Commissioner which was dismissed on a preliminary point. He filed a revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner against the order of the learned Commissioner rejecting his appeal. The revision was accepted and the case was remanded to the learned Commissioner for disposal on merits. In the meantime, Shrimati Anokhi and her son in execution of their decree had succeeded in ejecting Sunder Defendant from the land. The learned Commissioner accepted the appeal of Sunder on 22nd June, 1959, vacated the order of the learned Collector and further directed that Sunder should be given back possession of the land which had been taken away from him in execution of the order of the learned Collector that stood vacated.
(2.) THE Defendant in due course applied for restoration of possession of the land to him. The learned Assistant Collector dismissed his application on 31st July, 1959. Thereafter he filed a regular suit under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure against his two landlords for possession of the land from which he had been ejected by order of the learned Collector, Karnal. The suit was dismissed on 11th January, 1960. Surjan Singh Plaintiff after the dismissal of the said suit of Sunder Defendant purchased the land from Shrimati Anokhi and her son on 14th March, 1960, for Rs. 7,500 by a registered deed. Sunder did not rest there. He again applied to the learned Revenue Assistant, Karnal on 1st June, 1960, for restoration of possession of the land on the basis of the order of the learned Commissioner who had accepted his appeal and had also directed that the land should be restored to him. The learned Assistant Collector on this application ordered that Sunder Defendant should be put back in possession of the land. Thereupon Surjan Singh instituted the present suit in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karnal, for a perpetual injunction restraining Sunder Defendant permanently from dispossessing him from the land. He maintained that the learned Assistant Collector's order dated 13th June, 1960, was illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction and was thus not maintainable in law since he could not have ordered his dispossession from the land either under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure or in execution of the learned Commissioner's order dated 22nd June, 1959. It was further alleged that he was a bona fide purchaser for consideration and was also at the time of sale in cultivating possession of the land as a tenant under the previous owners, his vendors, and was not a party to the case in which the impugned order of the learned Assistant Collector First Grade dated 13th June, 1960, was passed and so was not liable to be dispossessed from the land in pursuance thereof.
(3.) SUNDER Defendant resisted the suit, on the grounds that the civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and that the order of the learned Assistant Collector dated 13th June, 1960, was legal and within his competence. He denied the Plaintiff's title in the land.;