- (1.) Respondent Nos. l and 2, namely, Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat of village Digrota, had filed a suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that they were owners and in possession of the suit land measuring 106 Kanals 12 Marlas and the order dated 7th September, 1967 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh, under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) was null and void, without jurisdiction and based upon fraud. According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land. Hanuman, defendant No. 3, who is brother of the remaining defendants, filed an application under section 42 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner on 5th July 1967, who decided it in favour of the defendants vide order dated 7th September, 1967. No notice of that application was given to the plaintiff's. The Sarpanch did not appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 7th Septenmber, 1967, nor admitted the claim of the defendant. Moreover, the Sarpanch nor the Gram Panchayat had any right to give away the land of the Panchayat. The said application had been filed by the Hanuman beyond limitation. Pat Ram, one of the defendants, at the relevant time was posted as Patwari in the Consolidation Department and in collusion with the other officers of that department, he got the said order passed. On the basis of that wrong order, mutation about change of ownership was sanctioned in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs came to know of those proceedings when in June, 1968 the defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction. It was further prayed that in case the defendants were found in possession then a decree for possession of the land be passed in favour of the plaintiffs.
(2.) The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 7. They pleaded that they were in possession of the suit land which had been given to them under the above referred order dated 7th September, 1967 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The validity of the order was defended. The other allegations of the plaintiffs were also denied. They took up other objections also but it is not necessary to refer to them.
(3.) Upon the allegations of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as 13 issues. It is not necessary to reproduce them as only issue Nos. 6 and 12-A were agitated before me. Those issues read as follows :- (6) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? (12A) Whether the suit is within limitation keeping in view the amended plaint ? Under issue No. 6 the learned trial Court held that in view of the finding under issue No. 5 that the order dated 7th September, 1967 was obtained either by fraud or collusion or, in any case, on the basis of the statement of the Sarpanch, which was without authority, the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Issue No. 12-A was framed because in the original plaint, plaintiff No. 1 was described as Sabha Area, Digrota. Later on the plaintiffs filed an application that the name of plaintiff No. 1 should be Gram Sabha, Digrota. That amendment was allowed on 27th November, 1972. The defendants in the written statement filed to the amended plaint, took the objection that the suit would be deemed to have been filed on the date the amendment was allowed and as the suit ought to have been filed within one year of the date of impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it was barred by time. The learned trial Court held that the suit was for possession. Therefore, it could have been filed within 12 years and, thus, was within limitation. That Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed appeal which was heard by learned District Judge, Bhiwani. Under issue No. 6 that Court held that as the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was non- est, the plaintiffs could ignore it altogether. On the question of limitation it was held that the suit was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as the plaintiffs had been dispossessed on 7th September, 1967, the suit was well within limitaiton. As a result of the above findings, the appeal was dismissed. Still not feeling satisfied, the defendants have come to this Court in second appeal.;