Udho Ram and another vs Kishan Chand

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 261 of 1980, as the question involved is common in both the cases.

The facts giving rise to this petition are that the plaintiff petitioner Udho Ram and others filed two separate suits against the defendant vendees which were decreed by the trial Court. In accordance with the order of the trial Court the successful preemptors deposited the money in the Court within time. They also took out education which was dismissed on account of the stay order issued by the appellate Court. Ultimately the vendees'' appeal was dismissed. The decree holder got the actual possession on June 21, 1977 (in C.R. No. 260 of 1980). They filed two suits for recovery of mesne profits from December 1, 1986, the date on which money was deposited in the Court till June, 21, 1977, the date when the possession was actually taken by them in execution of the degree. In Civil Revision No. 260 of the 1980 the amount claimed was Rs. 1500/ whereas in the other Civil Revision the amount claimed was Rs. 1800/. Both the suits were contested inter alia on the ground that the suits were barred under section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any mesne profits as the defendant was in possession of the suit land by virtue of the stay order granted by the appellate Court. The trial Court negatived the plea taken by the defendant and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs became owners of the suit land on December 1, 1976 and thereafter the defendant remained in possession of the same till June 20, 1977 without their consent and hence they were entitled to recover the amount of way of mesne profits. Consequently, both the suits were decreed. In appeal the learned District Judge took the view that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try these suits in view of provision of Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with Section 77(3) (n) thereof. Consequently, he directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the Collector. Dissatisfied with the same the plaintiffs have filed these two petitions.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 14 of the Punjab Tenancy Act was not attracted nor Section 77(3) (n) has any application to the facts of the present case. At no stage there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, therefore, the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suits. In support of his contention he referred to Faqir Singh v. Gurbachan Singh and others, 1971 P.L.J. 146.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only dispute between the parties in these petitions is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suits or not. It was held in Faqir Singh''s case (supra) that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant come within the definition of "landlord" and "tenant" as given in Sections 4(6) and 4(5) respectively of the Punjab Tenancy Act and, therefore, the suits for the recovery of mesne profits were not barred by the provision of Section 14 and Section 77(3) (n) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The ratio of the said judgment squarely covers the present case. At no stage there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and, therefore, the civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suits.

The finding of the courts below on merits are no more contested.

Consequently, both the petitions succeed, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and that the trial Court decreeing the plaintiffs'' suits are restored with costs.