P.S.Pattar, J. - (1.) This is a regular first appeal filed by Bam Sarup, plaintiff, against the judgment and decree dated June 6, 1961, of the Senior Sub-Judge, Rohtak, dismissing his suit for declaration and for possession of the land in dispute measuring 1 Kanal 19 Marias fully described in the plaint and situated in village Ghanaur, Tehsil Sonepat, District Rohtak, (now District Sonepat).
(2.) The facts of this case are that one Prabhu Dial was the owner of Khasra No. 1525 measuring 4 Bighag and 1 Biswa Kham situated in village Ghanaur, Tehsil Sonepat District Rohtak, and one Phulu was its occupancy tenant under him. The creditors of Phulu made an application on January 12, 1937, against him in the Insolvency Court to have him adjudicated insolvent Phulu was served in that insolvency case on February 10, 1937. Phulu sold his occupancy rights in that land to his landlord Prabhu Dial on the basis of sale deed dated February 25, 1937. Prabhu Dial thus became full owner of this land and he sold this land bearing Khasra No. 1525 to Ram Chander, defendant. Phulu was declared insolvent by order dated March 11, 1937 of the Insolvency Court. The whole of the property of Phulu insolvent, including the occupancy rights in Khasra No. 1525. vested in the official Receiver. The occupancy rights of Phulu debtor in Khasra No. 1525 were sold by public auction by the Official Receiver on May 24, 1937, and were purchased by Ram Sarup, plaintiff, and sale deed dated October 5, 1937, was executed in his favour.
(3.) Ram Chander, defendant, who had obtained possession of Khasra No. 1525 from Prabhu Dayal, filed a suit for declaration that he was owner of Khasra No. 1525 in suit besides some other land (with which we are not concerned in this appeal). This suit was decreed by the trial Court and this decree was upheld by the lower appellate Court and also by a single Bench of the Lahore High Court Ram Sarup then filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 106 of 1941, against the judgment of the Single Bench, and it was accepted by a Division Bench of that Court on April 8, 1943, and the copy of that judgment is Exhibit P-4. The Division Bench held that the sale of the occupancy rights in the land by Phulu in favour of Prabhu Dial landlord from whom Ram Chander, plaintiff, purchased this land, took place during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings, and therefore the sale by Phulu tenant in favour of Prabhu Dial was ineffective. The appeal was accepted and the suit of the plaintiff dismissed regarding the occupancy rights of this land sold to Prabhu Dial on February 25, 1937, by Phulu insolvent.;