Gurdwara Sahib Deh Aujla vs Inder Singh (died) Rep.By L.Rs.

J.M. Tandon, J.

Gurdwara Sahib Deh Aujla, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur (petitioner) obtained an exparte decree against the respondent for possession of land measuring 13 Kanals 16 Marlas and for recovery of Rs. 1,293.89 as mesne profits from Rabi 1969 to Rabi 1972. The petitioner has since taken possession of the land and there is no dispute about it. In the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,293.89 the respondent filed objection petition alleging that the decree with regard to the mesne profits was a nullity. The executing Court vide order dated 14th October, 1976 negatived the objection. The respondent filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide order dated 12th January, 1977. It was held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant a decree for mesne profits and that the decree for mesne profits sought to be executed was a nullity. Reliance was placed on Inder Singh Phagu Singh v. Lal Singh Sunder Singh, A.I.R. (42) 1955 N.U.C. 1351 and Gobinda Singh v. Bhag Singh, A.I.R. (42) 1955 N.U.C. 2503. The petitioner has assailed the order of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, in the present revision.

Sections 14 and 77(3)(n)of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 reads as under

"Section 14. Payment for land occupied without consent of landlord. Any person in possession of land occupied without the consent of the landlord shall be liable to pay for the use or occupation of that land at the rate of rent payable in the preceding agricultural year, or if rend was not payable in that year, at such rate as the Court may determine to be fair and equitable.

Section 77. Revenue Courts and suits congnizable by them ... ... (3) The following suits shall be instituted in, and heard and determined by, revenue Courts, and no other Court shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter with respect to which any such suit might be instituted : ... ... (n) suits by a landlord for arrears of rent or the moneyequivalent of rent, or for sums recoverable under section 14; or suits for the recovery of such arrears of or sums by any other person to whom a right to recover the same has been sold or otherwise transferred."

The petitioner is admittedly landowner (landlord) of the land which has remained in possession of the respondent. It is thus clear that the claim of the petitioner for mesne profits against the respondent is recovered under section 77(3)(n) read with section 14 of the Act. In view of the fact that the claim of the petitioner against the respondent is covered by section 77(3)(n) the civil Court stood debarred from entertaining a suit for the recovery thereof.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Faqir Singh v. Gurbachan Singh, etc. 1971 C.L.J 537, in support of his contention that the civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit for mesne profits filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The ratio of Faqir Singh''s case (supra) does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that case the plaintiff claimed to be lessee of the land and he filed a suit against the defendants alleging that they were the trespassers. It was held that under the circumstances it was not understood as to how the suit for the recovery of mesne profits against the defendants was barred by the provisions of section 14 and 77(3)(n) of the Act. This authority rather supports the case of the respondent.

In the result the revision fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.