J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for the grant of an injunction restraining the defendant from recovering the reclamation charges has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit on the allegations that he was a co -sharer along with Sukhpal Singh and Sukhdial Singh of the suit land. The Tahsildar, Patiala, was taking steps for the recovery of the reclamation charges which, so far as he was concerned, were to the tune of Rs. 8,680/ -. According to him, the notification and the notices required to be issued under law bad not been issued, nor served upon him and as such, all the proceedings regarding reclamation; assessment of the reclamation charges; apportionment thereof and also for their recovery, were illegal and without jurisdiction It was also pleaded that the Agriculture Department or the Collector had never taken possession from him, nor had delivered back possession to him. He was not given an opportunity to remove the trees standing on his land which had resulted into a loss of Rs. 20,000/ - to him. Thus, it was prayed that the decree restraining the defendant from recovering the reclamation charges be passed in his favour. The suit was contested on behalf of the defendant Inter alia on the ground that the suit for injunction did not lie against it when it was engaged in the recovery of the arrears of land revenue. The jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit was also pleaded to be barred. It was contended that a sum of Rs. 9,89208 was due from the plaintiff and that the recovery proceedings were being taken for the same. It was denied that the proper procedure under the PEPSU Reclamation of Lands Act had not been followed. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the recovery of reclamation charges is void and illegal? 2. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? 3. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction? 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis -joinder of causes of action? 5. Whether the other co -sharers are necessary Parties? If so its effect? 6. Whether the suit is time barred? 7. Whether the plaint it liable to be rejected for went of proper description of the suit property? 8. Relief Under issue No. 1, the trial Court found that the recovery of the reclamation charges from the plaintiff was illegal Under issue No. 2, it was held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the injunction prayed for. It was also observed that the suit for the grant of a declaration might have been filed. Under issue No 3, it was held that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Issue No 4 was not contested on behalf of the defendant. Under issue No. 6 the suit was held to be within time However, ultimately, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed on account of the finding on issue No. 2, that the suit for the grant of an injunction did not lie. In the appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff, the findings of the trial Court under issue No. 2 were challenged and the findings on the other issue which were given against the defendant were net challenged before it. The lower appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court under issue No. 2 and, thus, maintained the decree passed by it dismissing the plaintiff's suit. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in second appeal to this Court.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that after having found under issue No. 1, that the recovery of the reclamation charges was illegal, the suit could not be dismissed on the technical ground that the plaintiff had not prayed for the grant of a decree for declaration and had only prayed for the grant of a decree for injunction In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Shiv Dayal v/s. Union of India, A.I. R. 1983 P&H. 538, and Sardara Singh v/s. Sardara Singh, 1976 Rev. L.R. 172. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. Once it was found that the recovery of the reclamation charges was illegal, the plaintiff's suit could not be dismissed on the ground that no prayer for the grant of a decree for declaration was made and that the plaintiff only claimed the decree for the grant of injunction which could not be granted in his favour. As a matter of fact, once the plaintiff proved that the recovery, which was being made from him was illegal, he was entitled to the relief and in that situation, it was immaterial whether he had prayed for the grant of a decree for injunction or for the grant of a decree for declaration. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of declaration in the suit. It has been held in Shiv Dayal's case (supra), that the plaintiff ought to be given such relief as he is entitled to get on the facts established upon the evidence in the case even if the plaint does not contain a specific prayer for that relief. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Courts below have acted illegally in declining the relief to the plaintiff on the technical ground that a prayer for the grant of a decree for declaration was not made in the plaint.;