Gurtej Singh and anr. Vs. Jagan Nath and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ordern.k. kapoor, j. 1. this judgment shall dispose of regular second appeal nos. 1182 and 1183 of 1993 as both these appeals arise out of the same order dated 9.2.1993 passed by the district judge, faridkot, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.2. facts are being taken from regular second appeal no. 1183 of 1993. plaintiff jagan nath filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he has got 1/4th share in the land measuring 30 kanals 8 marias as detailed in the head note of the plaint and also for rendition of accounts and decree for payment of the amount fund to have been received by defendants no. 1 to 5. a per case of the plaintiff, one prabh dayal s/o deva ram was owner of the suit land. he was succeeded by plaintiff, amar nath, gurtej singh and tejwanti sons and daughter respectively. tejwanti has also died and is now succeeded by defendants no. 6 to 9. chet kaur is the widow of amar nath.3. defendants no. 1 to 4 filed a joint written statement and took some preliminary objections in the nature of i.e. suit is not maintainable; that the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the suit as he did not challenge the acquisition proceedings and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as possession of the land was taken by the punjab state, and lastly the civil court has not no jurisdiction in the award passed by the punjab state.4. defendants no. 6 and 7 filed separate written statement stating therein that prabh dayal was owner of the land measuring 138 kanals 8 marias and on his death his property was inherited by amar nath, gurtej singh, jagan nath and tejwanti. it was admitted that tejwanti had expired and she is now succeeded by defendants no. 6 to 9. similarly, chet kaur, defendant no. 10 filed separate written statement admitting the relationship of the parties. smt. chet kaur also contested the decree in favour of defendants no. 2 to 5 to the extent that the some was beyond their shares.5. on the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed. on appraisal of evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff along with gurtej singh, smt. tejwanti and chet kaur had equal share in the land measuring 30 kanals 8 marias subject matter of the acquisition proceedings and are entitled to possession as per their share. the court further came to the conclusion that the decree suffered by gurtej singh in favour of shavinder kumar and others his sons, does not in any manner affect the rights of the plaintiff and other contesting defendants and is valid only to the extent of share which gurtej singh inherited along with jagan nath and others. resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed holding that jagan nath has 1/4 share in 30 kanals 8 marias and for rendition of accounts.6. feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, gurtej singh and shavinder kumar and others his sons, filed one appeal against jagan nath and another appeal against chet kaur and others. both the appeals were taken up together by the district judge who on reconsidering the matter on facts as well as on law found no ground to vary the decision of the trial court and so dismissed both the appeals vide judgment and decree dated 9.2.1993.7. with a view to seek reversal of the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, learned counsel for the appellants after narrating in brief the factual matter leading to the controversy in the present suit mainly relied upon the decree suffered by gurtej singh in favour of his sons as well as award passed by the land acquisition court. according to the counsel, amar nath as well as jagan nath had put in appearance before the court of collector but did not raise any objection with regard to their share in the property in dispute. thus, by their own conduct they are now estopped from challenging the share as per which compensation has been determined. otherwise too, such a matter could only be examined under the provisions of the land acquisition act. this way the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter.8. broad facts are not in dispute that the property is owned by prabh dayal and on his death had been inherited by jagan nath, amar nath, gurtej singh and smt. tejwanti. on the death of amar nath, his share was inherited by smt. chet kaur. similarly, heirs of tejwanti succeeded to her share. this being the admitted position, each one of the aforesaid persons, namely, amar nath, jagan nath, gurtej and smt. tejwanti succeeded to the estate of prabh dayal in equal share i.e. 1/4th share in 30 kanals 8 marias. no fault has been found with this conclusion of the courts below. resultantly, the decree as suffered by gurtej singh in favour of his sons qua the share of smt. chet kaur and jagannath etc. was not valid in law and rightly held by the courts below.9. the present suit has been filed for declaration and rendition of account which obviously could not be a matter of adjudication before the land acquisition court. such a matter cannot be decided in terms of section 30 of the land acquisition court. section of the land acquisition act deals with the determination of dispute relating to apportionment of compensation. as per section 30 of the land acquisition act, in case there is a dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation or any part thereof, or as to the person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the collector is to refer such a dispute to the decision of the court. in the present case, the plaintiffs suit is for declaration to the effect that he is owner of 1/4th share in the land and he is entitled to possession to the extent of his share and for rendition of account. the declaration sought could be granted by a civil court alone. similarly, the claim for rendition of account cannot be subject matter of adjudication under section 30 of the land acquisition act. thus, i find no merit in the plea of the appellants.10. no other point has been pressed or claimed.11. thus, finding no merit in these appeals, the same are dismissed. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

N.K. Kapoor, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1182 and 1183 of 1993 as both these appeals arise out of the same order dated 9.2.1993 passed by the District Judge, Faridkot, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

2. Facts are being taken from Regular Second Appeal No. 1183 of 1993. Plaintiff Jagan Nath filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he has got 1/4th share in the land measuring 30 Kanals 8 Marias as detailed in the head note of the plaint and also for rendition of accounts and decree for payment of the amount fund to have been received by defendants No. 1 to 5. A per case of the plaintiff, one Prabh Dayal s/o Deva Ram was owner of the suit land. He was succeeded by plaintiff, Amar Nath, Gurtej Singh and Tejwanti sons and daughter respectively. Tejwanti has also died and is now succeeded by defendants No. 6 to 9. Chet Kaur is the widow of Amar Nath.

3. Defendants No. 1 to 4 filed a joint written statement and took some preliminary objections in the nature of i.e. suit is not maintainable; that the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the suit as he did not challenge the acquisition proceedings and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as possession of the land was taken by the Punjab State, and lastly the civil court has not no jurisdiction in the award passed by the Punjab State.

4. Defendants No. 6 and 7 filed separate written statement stating therein that Prabh Dayal was owner of the land measuring 138 Kanals 8 Marias and on his death his property was inherited by Amar Nath, Gurtej Singh, Jagan Nath and Tejwanti. It was admitted that Tejwanti had expired and she is now succeeded by defendants No. 6 to 9. Similarly, Chet Kaur, defendant No. 10 filed separate written statement admitting the relationship of the parties. Smt. Chet Kaur also contested the decree in favour of defendants No. 2 to 5 to the extent that the some was beyond their shares.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed. On appraisal of evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Plaintiff along with Gurtej Singh, Smt. Tejwanti and Chet Kaur had equal share in the land measuring 30 Kanals 8 Marias subject matter of the acquisition proceedings and are entitled to possession as per their share. The court further came to the conclusion that the decree suffered by Gurtej Singh in favour of Shavinder Kumar and others his sons, does not in any manner affect the rights of the plaintiff and other contesting defendants and is valid only to the extent of share which Gurtej Singh inherited along with Jagan Nath and others. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed holding that Jagan Nath has 1/4 share in 30 Kanals 8 Marias and for rendition of accounts.

6. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, Gurtej Singh and Shavinder Kumar and others his sons, filed one appeal against Jagan Nath and another appeal against Chet Kaur and others. Both the appeals were taken up together by the District Judge who on reconsidering the matter on facts as well as on law found no ground to vary the decision of the trial Court and so dismissed both the appeals vide judgment and decree dated 9.2.1993.

7. With a view to seek reversal of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellants after narrating in brief the factual matter leading to the controversy in the present suit mainly relied upon the decree suffered by Gurtej Singh in favour of his sons as well as award passed by the land Acquisition Court. According to the counsel, Amar Nath as well as Jagan Nath had put in appearance before the Court of Collector but did not raise any objection with regard to their share in the property in dispute. Thus, by their own conduct they are now estopped from challenging the share as per which compensation has been determined. Otherwise too, such a matter could only be examined under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. This way the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter.

8. Broad facts are not in dispute that the property is owned by Prabh Dayal and on his death had been inherited by Jagan Nath, Amar Nath, Gurtej Singh and Smt. Tejwanti. On the death of Amar Nath, his share was inherited by Smt. Chet Kaur. Similarly, heirs of Tejwanti succeeded to her share. This being the admitted position, each one of the aforesaid persons, namely, Amar Nath, Jagan Nath, Gurtej and Smt. Tejwanti succeeded to the estate of Prabh Dayal in equal share i.e. 1/4th share in 30 Kanals 8 Marias. No fault has been found with this conclusion of the Courts below. Resultantly, the decree as suffered by Gurtej Singh in favour of his sons qua the share of Smt. Chet Kaur and Jagannath etc. was not valid in law and rightly held by the Courts below.

9. The present suit has been filed for declaration and rendition of account which obviously could not be a matter of adjudication before the Land Acquisition Court. Such a matter cannot be decided in terms of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Court. Section of the Land Acquisition Act deals with the determination of dispute relating to apportionment of compensation. As per Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, in case there is a dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation or any part thereof, or as to the person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector is to refer such a dispute to the decision of the Court. In the present case, the plaintiffs suit is for declaration to the effect that he is owner of 1/4th share in the land and he is entitled to possession to the extent of his share and for rendition of account. The declaration sought could be granted by a civil court alone. Similarly, the claim for rendition of account cannot be subject matter of adjudication under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, I find no merit in the plea of the appellants.

10. No other point has been pressed or claimed.

11. Thus, finding no merit in these appeals, the same are dismissed. No costs.