- (1.) The present appellant Umrao Singh had filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 (now respondents 1 and 2) respectively from interfering with his possession as well as the possession of the proforma defendant Sardara (now respondent No. 3) over the site in dispute, including the house standing thereon and delineated by letters W, X, Y and Z in the plea filed with the plaint. According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiff and proforma defendant Sardara have been in possession of the site in dispute since the time of their ancestors. Two chappars, one pucca kotha, chabutra, verandahs and mangers were in existence on the site in dispute since long. The plaintiff resided on this site and also tethered his cattle. Defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 2, Gram Panchayat, obtained an order in its favour on 24th September, 1971 from the Director Consolidation, after representing that the site in dispute was agricultural land. Under the cover of that order the said defendants were bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff from this site. The Director, Consolidation, had no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of the residential sites and therefore, the said order is void and is not binding upon the plaintiff.
(2.) The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 2 who filed separate written statements. They pleaded that the plaintiff and the proforma defendant Sardara were not the owners of the site in Dispute, nor any one of them was residing on this site. The Director, Consolidation, passed the impugned order under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. the other allegations of the plaintiff were also denied by him.
(3.) Upon the allegation of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues : (1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the land in dispute as alleged ? OPP. (2) Whether the Order of the Director, Consolidation of Holdings dated 24.9.71 is without jurisdiction illegal, wrong and as such not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff as alleged in para 2 of the plaint ? OPP (3) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit ? O.P.P (4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? O.P.D. (5) Whether the principle of res judicata applies in the present suit ? O.P.D. (6) Relief. Under issue No. 1 it was held that though the plaintiff and proforma defendant has not been able to prove their ownership over the site in dispute but they were in possession thereof. Issues No. 2 and 5 have been treated as preliminary and were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Under issue No. 2 it was held that the order of the Director, Consolidation was without jurisdiction. Under issue No. 5 it was held that the impugned order of the Director did not operate as res judicata. Under issue No. 3 it was held that the Civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit, as the plaintiff was claiming a decree for permanent injunction to try the suit, as the plaintiff was claiming a decree for permanent injunction for restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from dispossessing him from the suit property. Issue No. 4 was also found in favour of the plaintiff. As a result of the above findings, plaintiff's suit was decreed.;