Mehar Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment and order, dated February 6, 1964, of a learned Single Judge, reported as Lakshbir Singh v. Anant Ram, 1964 P.L.R. 610 dismissing a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Appellant, Lakshbir Singh, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(2.) THE facts of the case are somewhat complicated and not all are available from the annexure filed by the parties with the original petition. The learned Single Judge had to call for the files of the revenue authorities for clarification of the facts and we had also the facility of looking into the same. Reference to annexure will be to those with the original petition, and reference to the Exhibits will be to those on File No. 87 of the Naib -Tehsildar Agrarian. It is, therefore, necessary to give some considerable details of the facts so that the matters in controversy become clear. In the revenue area of Bhatinda there are two Pattis, namely, Patti Jhutti and Patti Mahna. The land, subject of controversy in this appeal, is of four survey numbers, three in Patti Jhutti, that is to say, survey Nos. 5029/1824, 7 Bighas and 9 Biswas, 5031/1825, 6 Bighas and 3 Biswas, and 1826, 22 Bighas and 10 Biswas, and the fourth survey No. 5209/1799, 11 Bighas and 14 Biswas, in Patti Mahna. The area of the four field numbers comes to 9 standard acres and 15 ¼ standard units. This land was the property of Sampuran Singh and others of Bhatinda from whom Thakur Das Madhok purchased it. With File No. 87 is Khasra Girdawari, Exhibit P/2, from Kharif 1994 BK. to Rabi 1998 BK. (Kharif 1937 to Rabi 1941), which shows that in 1937 the three survey numbers of Patti Jhutti were in the self -cultivation of Thakar Das Madhok, but in Kharif 1938 Hari Ram is shown as tenant -at -will of all the four survey numbers of both the Pattis, obviously under the then owner Thakur Das Madhok. This state of affairs continued up to Rabi 1941. Exhibit P/3 in the same file is Khasra Girdawari from Kharif 1998 BK. to Rabi 2002 BK. (Kharif 1941 to Rabi 1945). It shows that the land was in the tenancy of Hari Ram down to Rabi 2000 BK. (Rabi 1943), and as in Kharif 2000 BK. (Kharif 1943), the name of his son, Sant Ram, Respondent, appears as cultivator of the land on account of inheritance, it shows that Hari Ram died somewhere about that time. The possession from Kharif 1943 to Rabi 1945 is of Sant Ram, Respondent, alone as tenant -at -will of the land. Thakur Das Madhok died on August 10, 1944 (Annexure 'A'). He was succeeded by his grandson Jahangir Chand Madhok, whose name appears in the Khasra Girdawari of Kharif 2001 BK. (Kharif 1944) onwards. The Khasra Girdawaris, Exhibits P/4, 5 and 6, with File No. 87, from Kharif 2002 BK. (Kharif 1945) to Rabi 2011 BK. (Rabi 1954) show that Sant Ram, Respondent, continued as the tenant -at -will of all the four survey numbers. There is some inconsistency with regard to the amount of the Chakota or the cash rent in the Khasra Girdawaris, Exhibits P -5 and 6, but that is not at all a material matter so far as the present case is concerned. On March 2, 1953, Jahangir Chand Madhok mortgaged, with possession, the four survey numbers with Banarsi Das and others according to the mortgage deed Annexure 'B'. The total area was mortgaged. Sant Ram, Respondent, according to the Khasra Girdawaris, Exhibits P/5 and 6, continues as the tenant -at -will under the (mortgagees. The only matter that may be stated - here with regard to this mortgage is that in the deed itself there was no mention that the land was under the tenancy of any tenant, though the fact of the matter, according to the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris, was that the four survey numbers were in the possession of Sant Ram, Respondent, as tenant -at -will, first under the owner Jahangir Chand Madhok, and from March 2, 1953, under the mortgagees, Banarsi Das and others.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the details of this matter will appear a little later, it is pertinent to state here that Anant Ram, Respondent, claimed to have also become tenant of the four field numbers under Jahangir Chand Madhok, the owner, for a period of three years beginning from 1952. So his tenancy was from 1952 to 1955. Jahangir Chand Madhok admitted this claim. He further said that at the time of the execution of the mortgage deed of March 2, 1953, he informed Benarsi Das and others, the mortgagees, of the factum of the existence of tenancy on the land in favour of Anant Ram, Respondent. The learned Single Judge has believed this and has found as a fact that Anant Ram, Respondent, was a tenant of the land under Jahangir Chand Madhok, because of the tenancy created in his favour for three years in 1952. So when Benarsi Das and others took mortgage of the land from Jahangir Chand Madhok, Anant Ram, Respondent, became their tenant under the lease he had already from Jahangir Chand Madhok.;