Lakhi vs Gram Panchayat and Others

Rakesh Garg, J.

Appellant filed the instant suit seeking the following relief:-

Suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiff and proforma-defendants are owners and in possession of agriculture land bearing rect. No. 22 Killa No. 17(5-13) comprised in khewat No. 149 min, khatoni No. 271 min, vide jamabandi for the year 1988-89 relating to village khanda Tehsil and District Jind. Defendant No. 1 (Gram Panchayat has no right, title or interest in any manner whatsoever with the same and Fard Badar No. 28 dated 12.9.1989 for the year 1988-89 of village Khanda Tehsil and District Jind, whereby the agriculture land (suit land) comprised in Khewat No. 6 rect. No. 22 Killa No. 27(5-13), of village Khanda Tehsil and District Jind, has been shifted to Khewat No. 149 in the name of defendant No. 1 by defendant No. 2, is illegal, null and void and not binding on rights of the plaintiff and proforma defendant and now plaintiff sole is in actual, and physical, cultivating possession over the said agriculture land and defendants have no concern with the suit land in any manner and said Fard Badar No. 28 dated 12.9.1989 of village Khanda Tehsil and District Jind, is liable to be set aside and cancelled and said land is liable to be shifted under the ownership in the revenue records in the name of plaintiff and proforma defendants and all the name of plaintiff and proforma defendants and all the revenue records like as jamabandi, mutation, Fard-Badar, Khasra-Girdawaries relating to said agriculture Land since 12.9.1989 till date are liable to be corrected in favour of plaintiff and proforma defendants and consequently for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering into peaceful, lawful, cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the said land now or in future.

The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 2 raising various preliminary objections including that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

Whether plaintiff and proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP.

Whether Fard Badar No. 28 dated 12.9.1989 by which suit land has been shifted in the name of defendant No. 1 by defendant No. 2 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of plaintiff and Performa defendants? OPP.

Whether subsequent revenue entry of the suit land are liable to be corrected in the name of plaintiff and proforma defendants? OPP

Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land? OPP.

Whether suit of plaintiff is within limitation? OPP

Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 80 C.P.C.? OPD

Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit under Section 13 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act? OPD.

Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts from the Court, if so its effect? OPD.

Relief.

Vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2006, issue Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 were decided against the appellant and resultantly, the suit was dismissed. Under issue No. 7, it was held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the bar created under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2008.

Still not satisfied, plaintiff has filed the instant appeal submitting that following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:-

i) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are against the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the appellant-plaintiff amounting to perversity?

ii) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are based on misreading, misconstruction and mis-interpretation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record?

iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate Court is violative of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 C.P.C. warranting interference by this Hon''ble Court?

iv) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are without jurisdiction in view of the learned trial Court having held the suit to be not maintainable in view of Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961?

v) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court relying upon the inadmissible evidence is sustainable in the eyes of law?

Noticing the contentions raised, this Court passed the following order on 08.10.2010:-

"Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Courts below after holding that civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit should have ordered return of the plaint and should not have recorded findings on other issues. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, is unable to satisfy this Court that Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Notice of motion to respondents No. 1 and 2 only for 20.01.2011."

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and other documents placed on record of this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Courts below after holding that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit, should not have recorded the findings on other issues. According to the counsel for the appellant, there was no occasion for the Courts below for returning the findings on merits and in such an eventuality the findings rendered by the Courts below are without jurisdiction and are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the Courts below ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation of it to the proper Court without returning-any finding on merits. Thus, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below being based on error of law are liable to be set aside.

However, it could not be disputed before this Court that such an argument as raised before this Court does not find mention in the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. The impugned judgment of the lower Appellate Court does not show that any such argument was raised on behalf of the appellant. In fact, in para No. 15 of the impugned judgment, it has been mentioned that no other argument was urged or argued.

However, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before this Court that appellant has taken a specific plea in his grounds of appeal submitted before the lower Appellate Court and therefore, an inference is necessarily to be drawn in favour of the appellant that such an argument was raised.

The argument as raised is misconceived and liable to be rejected out-rightly. The lower Appellate Court was not obliged to return the findings or its observations simply because such an argument was raised in the grounds of appeal. There is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide such an issue unless lawyer renders the proper assistance to the Court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points. In case, counsel for the parties are not able to render any assistance, the Court may decline to entertain the petition.

The aforesaid observations of this Court are supported by a judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Poonam Vs. Sumit Tanwar, which reads thus:-

"In absence of proper assistance to Court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless the lawyer renders the proper assistance to the Court, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the controversy. The counsel cannot just raise the issues in his petition and leave it to the Court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points. In case counsel for the party is not able to render any assistance, the Court may decline to entertain the petition".

In view of the aforesaid, appellant cannot be allowed to raise the argument as noticed in the order dated 08.10.2010.

In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in this appeal. Thus, no substantial questions of law, as raised, arise in this appeal.

Dismissed.