Pritam Singh Pattar, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Avtar Singh and another against the order dated September 23, 1974, of the Sub -Judge IInd Class, Jullundur, whereby he decided that the plot in dispute is a part of the khasra numbers mentioned in the amended plant, and that the suit was properly valued for purposes of Court free and Jurisdiction.
(2.) THE facts of this case are that Banarsi Dass, resident of village Pandori Kad, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, was a member of the Partap Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Jullundur. This Society purchased Khasra Nos. 29843/21340, 29844/21320 and 29845/ 1320, bearing Khewat Nos. 4228, 4231 and 5067 and Khatauni Nos. 5469, 5473 and 6401, as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1969 -70 of Jullundur City. This land was purchased by the Society for the purpose of demarcating the same into plots and allotting the same to its members. After the death of Banarsi Dass, plot No. 180 measuring Kanal 2 Marlas demarcated out of the aforesaid land was allotted to Smt. Kamlesh Kalia Plaintiff by the Society widow of Banarsi Dass deceased and sale deed dated March 22, 1968, for Rs. 2,754.78 was executed in her favour. The possession of the plot was delivered to her. It is alleged that Avtar Singh, defendant No. 1, took forcible possession of this land and he did not deliver its possession to her in spite of repeated requests. The plaintiff Kamlesh Kalia, therefore, filed this suit for possession of this plot No. 180 against Avtar Singh defendant and others. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds. It was pleaded inter -alia that the plot in dispute is not a part of the khasra numbers given in the heading of the plaint, and that the suit is not properly valued for purposes of Court -fee and jurisdiction. On these pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issues were framed by the trial Court : - - (1) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court -fee and jurisdiction ? (2) Whether plot in dispute (No. 180) comprises the Khasra Nos. mentioned in the amended plaint ? That Sub Judge held that the suit was properly valued for purposes of Court fee and Jurisdiction and decided issue No. 1 against the defendants. Issue No. 2 was held in favour of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved Avtar Singh and Kalu Ram defendants filed the revision petition against this order.
(3.) THE description of the plot No. 180 measuring 1 Kanal and 2 Marlas as given in the beading of the plaint is as follows : - - North Plot No. 179 South Plot No. 181 West Plot Nos. 186 and 187 East Garha Road. This plot, according to the plaintiff, is a part of Khasra Nos. 29843/21349 measuring I Kanal 7 Marlas, 29844/21320 measuring 4 kanals 3 Marlas and 29845/21320 measuring 19 Kanals 3 Marlas, vide copy of the Jamabandi, Exhibit P. 2. It is also clear from Exhibit P. 2 that the annual land revenue assessed on Khasra 29843/21360 is only 36 paise, on 29844/21320 is Re. 1/ - and on 2,845/21320 is Rs. 7.80. There is absolutely no proof on the ale to show that how much are out of which of these Khasra numbers is comprised in plot No. 180 in dispute.;