Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is a regular first appeal filed by Bam Sarup, plaintiff, against the judgment and decree dated June 6, 1961, of the Senior Sub-Judge, Rohtak, dismissing his suit for declaration and for possession of the land in dispute measuring 1 Kanal 19 Marias fully described in the plaint and situated in village Ghanaur, Tehsil Sonepat, District Rohtak, (now District Sonepat).

2. The facts of this case are that one Prabhu Dial was the owner of Khasra No. 1525 measuring 4 Bighag and 1 Biswa Kham situated in village Ghanaur, Tehsil Sonepat District Rohtak, and one Phulu was its occupancy tenant under him. The creditors of Phulu made an application on January 12, 1937, against him in the Insolvency Court to have him adjudicated insolvent Phulu was served in that insolvency case on February 10, 1937. Phulu sold his occupancy rights in that land to his landlord Prabhu Dial on the basis of sale deed dated February 25, 1937. Prabhu Dial thus became full owner of this land and he sold this land bearing Khasra No. 1525 to Ram Chander, defendant. Phulu was declared insolvent by order dated March 11, 1937 of the Insolvency Court. The whole of the property of Phulu insolvent, including the occupancy rights in Khasra No. 1525. vested in the official Receiver. The occupancy rights of Phulu debtor in Khasra No. 1525 were sold by public auction by the Official Receiver on May 24, 1937, and were purchased by Ram Sarup, plaintiff, and sale deed dated October 5, 1937, was executed in his favour.

5. Thereafter, Ram Sarup plaintiff filed a civil suit for possession of this land against Ram Chander on October 14, 1943, on the ground that he is occupancy tenant of this land by virtue of the sale effected in his favour by the Official Receiver and that Ram Chander defendant was in illegal possession. Ram Chander defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. He pleaded that the original occupancy tenant had sold his rights to the landlord and the latter had in his turn sold the entire holding to him, and that the sale of the occupancy rights by the Official Receiver was void. The plaintiff's reply to this objection was that the previous decision between the parties operated as res judicata and that the defendant was debarred from raising the plea. Two issues were framed by the trial Court in that case. The first issue was whether the sale by the Official Receiver in favour of Ram Chander plaintiff of the occupancy rights was illegal and the second issue was whether the defendant was not estopped by the principle of res judicata from taking the plea contained in issue No. 1. The trial Court found issue No. 1 for the defendant, but the second issue was held in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. On appeal the Senior Sub Judge set aside the finding of the trial Court on the question of res judicata and dismissed the suit with costs. Against the decree of the Senior Sub-Judge, the plaintiff Ram Sarup preferred second appeal in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed Ram Sarup plaintiff filed letters patent appeal against this decision, which was decided on June 16, 1948, by a Division Bench of this Court, and this decision is reported as Ram Sarup v. Ram Chandar, AIR 1949 EP 29. The Division Bench held that the plea raised by the defendant-landlord that the sale of the occupancy rights by the Official Receiver in favour of Ram Sarup was not binding upon him and should, therefore, be set aside was a plea, which was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court and, therefore, the letters patent appeal was accepted and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and the case was sent back to the trial Court with the direction that he should call upon the defendant to make his plea regarding the avoidance of the sale clear and definite in his written statement by making a suitable amendment thereof and after that give the plaintiff an opportunity of raising a counter-defence to the defendant's plea, if he wished to do so, by filing a replication and then to return the plaint for presentation to the Collector in accordance with the procedure laid down in proviso 1 to Sub-section (3) of Section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. In accordance with this order of the High Court, the plaint was returned to Ram Sarup plaintiff for presentation to the Collector. Ram Sarup plaintiff presented this plaint before Mr. Kapur, Sub-Divisional Officer Sonepat, who was Assistant Collector 1st Grade with powers of Collector. However, during the pendency of this case, Mr. Kapur was transferred and he was succeeded by Mr. B.S. Manchanda, who was Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sonepat. He dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on September 24, 1951, and the copy of that order is Exhibit D-18. It is alleged that Mr. Manchanda had no jurisdiction to hear that case and his judgment is without jurisdiction. In pursuance of this judgment mutation of this land was attested by the revenue authorities in the name of Ram Chander on May 30, 1954. The plaintiff then filed an appeal against the judgment of Shri Manchanda before the Commissioner, which was dismissed. He then filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which was also dismissed. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is owner in possession of the land in suit measuring 1 Kanal 19 Marias, which is part of Khasra No. 442 min. (whose previous Khasra No. was 1525) and in the alternative it is prayed that if he is not found to be in possession of this land then decree for possession may be passed.

The plaint was then returned to Ram Sarup plaintiff for presentation to the Revenue Court. He presented the same to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonepat. Shri B.S. Manchanda, Sub-Divisional Officer, (Civil) Sonepat, by his judgment dated September 24, 1951, whose copy is Exhibit D-18, set aside the sale by the Official Receiver by Public auction in favour of Ram Sarup, as the provisions of Section 55 of the Punjab Tenancy Act were not complied with and dismissed this suit. The appeal and the revision filed by Ram Sarup before the Collector and the Commissioner respectively were also dismissed. Ram Sarup then filed a further revision in the Court of the Financial Commissioner, who dismissed the fame on September 22, 1956, vide copy of the order Exhibit D-1. After the dismissal of his revenue suit, Ram Sarup filed Civil Writ Petition No. 69 of 1957 in this Court, which was dismissed on October 25, 1957, and the copy of that judgment is Exhibit D-2. The only point pressed in the writ petition was that the point of res judicata was not decided by the Financial Commissioner and this contention was repelled. It is well settled law that the decision of a Court of Special jurisdiction (Revenue Court) will be res judicata in a Court of general jurisdiction (Civil Court) provided the decision of the Court of special jurisdiction was within the jurisdiction of that Court. A Revenue Court's decision is binding on the Civil Court so far as the issue raised before it is raised again in the Civil Court. Vide Daulat Ram v. Munshi Ram, AIR 1932 Lah 623. In the instant case the suit was triable by the Revenue Courts and the decision dated September 24, 1951, of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, copy whereof is Exhibit D-18, which was maintained by the superior Revenue Courts, that the sale of the occupancy rights of the land in suit by the Official Receiver in favour of Ram Sarup plaintiff-appellant was invalid and was set aside, operates as res judicata in this case.

"On the plaint being presented to the Collector, the Collector shall proceed to hear and determine the suit where the value thereof exceeds Rs. 1,000/- or the matter involved is of the nature mentioned in Section 77 (3), First Group, of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, and in other cases may send the suit to an Assistant Collector of the first grade for decision."

23. It js undisputed that the value for the purpose of jurisdiction of that suit was only Rs. 42/3/-. The matter involved in this suit was not of the nature mentioned in First Group of Section 77 (3) of that Act and, therefore, it was not exclusively triable by the Collector. This suit fell under Second Group of Section 77 (3) of the Act and was triable by an Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Shri B.S. Manchanda, I.A.S., who was invested with powers of Collector 1st Grade, had the jurisdiction to try the suit and his judgment is valid. It was then urged by the counsel for the appellant that since this suit was presented in the Court of the Collector, therefore, the Collector alone could try it unless he transferred the same to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. This contention is misconceived and is rejected. Shri Kapar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonepat, in whose Court the plaint was presented after the decision of the High Court was Assistant Collector 1st Grade and he was also invested with powers of a Collector. He was transferred during the pendency of the suit and was succeeded by Shri Manchanda, who decided the case. Shri Manchanda had inherent jurisdiction to try the case and his decision is perfectly valid and legal. For all these reasons, it is held that there is no substance in the contention of the counsel for the appellant and the same is rejected.