Rang Rao Singh and ors. vs Gobind Ram and ors.

J.V. Gupta, J.

This is defendant''s second appeal against whom suit for decalartion and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed in appeal.

The plaintiffs were the occupancy tenants on the suit land owned by the owners of Shamlat Patti Sultan. Later on, in view of the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 they became owners of the land Iunder their occupation. Thus on 15.6.1952, the occupancy tenants become proprietors of their holding together with the share in the Shamlat Patti Sultan with respect of the land mentioned in Para No. 1 of the plaint and the rights of ownership of the persons mentioned in Schedule `B'' with respect to the said land together with appurtenant shares in the Shamlat Patti Sultan became extinguished. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendants together with the persons mentioned in Schedule `B'' started asserting their ownership of the land to the exclusion of the plaintiffs prior to the filing of this suit. Hence they filed the present suit for declaration that they are joint owners in possession of the suit land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling or otherwise alienating the suit land in excess of their shares. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the plaintiffs have not become owners in the Shamlat Patti Sultan. According to the defendants, only those proprietors in the village had the shares in the Shamlat Patti Sultan who were in possession thereof according to the entries in column 4 of Exhibit P1 to the effect that "Shamlat Patti Sultan Hasab Rased Kabza Zamin Mal Lakiat Missal Hakiat 190506". The trial Court found that the plaintiffs have not become joint owners in the Shamlat Patti Sultan simply because they have become owners being the occupancy tenants and consequently dismissed the plaintiffs suit. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the said entry in Exhibit P/1 was only in respect of the measure of the share held by the proprietors in the land of Shamlat Patti in the year 190506 which could not mean to convey that only the proprietors of Patti Sultan as recorded in the year 190506 were to hold the and the Shamlat Patti in suit. According to the lower Appellate Court, this entry should be interpreted to mean that the proprietors of Shamlat Patti in the year 190506 were the ascendants of those on whom the suit land has devolve by inheritance. Consequently, the plaintiffs'' suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have filed the second appeal.

The Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Beant Singh and another v. Malla Singh and owners, 1965 P.L.J. 34, held that the occupancy tenants have become the owners in the same measure and with the same rights as the landlords with the net result that whatever rights, title and interest including the contingent interest, if any recognized by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force and including the share in the Shamlat with respect to the land concerned which vested in the landlords now vests in the occupancy tenants. They have ceased to be tenants and have become fullfledged proprietors clothed with all the rights of the proprietors under whom they were occupancy tenants. Occupancy tenants have become cosharers with the proprietors to the extent to which the proprietors had interest in the Shamlat or the village Abadi and can claim partition of the Shamlat or the village Abadi along with the other landlords.

Faced with this judgment, no meaningful arguments could be raised to challenge the finding of the lower Appellate Court.

However, the learned counsel for the defendantappellants apprehended that certain land was transferred to the school by the defendants and the plaintiffs should not be allowed to claim any rights therein. The matter has already been dealt with by the trial Court in Para No. 15 of its judgment. It has been observed therein that "he has also urged that the plaintiffs claimed only a declaration with respect to the land presently available. Therefore, there is no question of any determination of shares and the relief can still be granted to the plaintiffs without joining the school as a party to this suit." Moreover, it has been again reiterated on behalf of the plaintiffs that they are not challenging any transfer made by the defendants earlier out of the land belonging to the Shamlat Patti Sultan. With these observations, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.