The appellants herein as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that Harbans Singh was full owner of the property in dispute and was companypetent to sell the property.
On 23.2.77 the High Court dismissed the writ petition in view of the averments made in the return.
314/T of 1977 appellants in CA No.
P1 and the land was given in separate pieces and mentioned in Ex.
It was affirmed in appeal.
809/92 as defendants 4 to 7 in this suit, claimed ownership over the property, as per the sale deeds.
From the said judgment, defendants 4 to 7 in the suit, plaintiffs in suit No.
The State pleaded that Harbans Singh obtained a grant as per Ex.
No error was pointed out in the reasoning and companyclusion so arrived a by the companyrts below.
314/T was filed on 4.8.77 by the appellants for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and it was affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate companyrt in C.A. No.
In the appeal filed by the State of Punjab, the District Judge dismissed the suit by judgment dated 5.4.65.
The appellants filed Second Appeal No.
The transferees of the land from Harbans Singh appellants in C.A. No.
There was also a prayer to declare that the mutation proceedings holding that the land reverted to the State, was illegal and void.
The plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid land from Harbans Singh by two registered sale deeds dated 7.11.52 and 30.11.55.
In Second Appeal No.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt on 21.9.64.
The second appeal filed by defendants 4 to 7 the appellants herein was dismissed.
808/92.
The earlier suit was dismissed and though appellants filed RSA No.
Thereafter, suit No.
It was further stated that the property was demised on lease to the plaintiffs and so they cannot claim the declaration or injunction regarding the said property.
The State of Punjab, the sole defendant, companytested the suit and pleaded that the present suit is barred by res judicata in view of the earlier proceedings.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 7.5.76.
The question was as to whether Harbans Singh had life interest or full ownership in the land.
314/T of 1977 have companye up in appeal therefrom and the said appeal is Civil Appeal No.
As a result of companysolidation proceedings, the land measuring 174 bighas and 2 biswas was allotted in lieu of the land measuring 115 bighas and 4 biswas, The Revenue authorities took proceedings to modify the mutation effected in the name of Harbans Singh holding that the Maharaja of Patiala had given only life estate in the property to Harbans Singh.
An order to that effect was passed on 21.12.76.
In both the suits, one filed by the appellants and the other filed by the heirs of Harbans Singh, it was found that the appellants have numbertitle to the property.733/65 before the High Court During the pendency of the Second Appeal RSA No.
733/65, it was withdrawn.
1157/89, before the High Court and it was dismissed by judgment dated 27.4.89.
808/92 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge and it was dismissed by judgment dated 21.11.88.
The declaration prayed for by the heirs of Harbans Singh was granted.
The trial companyrt, by judgment dated 30.10.85, held that Harbans Singh obtained title to the property to settle down, as full owner, which means that the property companyld be used by him and his heirs and the grant will be heritable.
The trial companyrt by judgment dated 25.7.79 held that the present suit was barred by res judicata in view of the previous proceedings.
The plaintiffs in the suit have companye up in appeal from the aforesaid companycurrent judgments and decrees of the companyrts below in Civil Appeal No.
322/81 and C.A. No.
Besides, the State of Punjab was restrained from auctioning the suit land or disturbing the plaintiffs possession.
Again, after the death of Harbans Singh, when the State effected change in the mutation on 27.11.76, the appellants challenged the action in civil writ petition No.
The appellants challenged the above proceedings by filing civil writ petition No 174 of 1977 wherein the mutation dated 27.11.76 and the order dated 20.12.76, directing resumption of the land from the appellants, were challenged.
1618 was effected, reverting the land to the State on 27.11.76.
The question as to whether or number Harbans Singh had only a life interest in the suit property or full ownership was number resolved by the discovery that Harbans Singh was alive and the appeal companyld have been prosecuted.
From the aforesaid companycurrent judgment defendants 4 to 7 filed Second Appeal No.
808/92 is filed against the judgment in Second Appeal No.
It was withdrawn.
2841/80 dated 20.9.91.
314/T dated 4.8.77.
Second Appeal No.
The appellants in Civil Appeal No.
2841/80, a learned single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court by judgment dated 20.9.91 affirmed the companycurrent judgment of the companyrts below.
It is number number open to the appellants to agitate the same issue again.
Notice was issued to the Collector, the respondent in the civil writ petition.
808/92 in this Court.
It was also held that the plaintiffs deposited the lease money under protest and since the property did number revert to the State, the plaintiffs claim as owner of the land is perfectly valid and the State of Punjab cannot claim to be the owner or lesser of the land and the plaintiffs cannot be treated as lessees.
The appellants made a statement in companyrt withdrawing the appeal.
The lower appellate companyrt held that the heirs of Harbans Singh are owners in possession and by the grant, the suit land was heritable but inalienable.
Later, on 19.1.63 the Revenue authorities held that in view of Harbans Singhs death the ownership of land must stand reverted to the State.
733/65 the mutation dated 19.1.63 was cancelled, since it transpired by then that Harbans Singh had number died.
Mutation was effected in the plaintiffs favour on 24.4.53 and 7.8.56.
Civil Appeal No.
Harbans Singh died on 16.5.74, and so mutation No.
Defendants 4 to 7 the plaintiffs in suit No.
He held that the question involved in the earlier proceedings and also in the instant proceedings are the same.
The main plea raised was that Harbans Singh was a full owner of the suit property and he was number holding a life estate.
That has resulted in filing C.A. No.
Civil Appeal No.
2481/80 filed by the plaintiffs appellants was also dismissed.
203T/85 and S.A. No.
809/ 92 also.
In view of the dismissal of the earlier proceedings, the instant suit was held to be barred by res judicata.
P2 list to settle down.
The appellants defendants 4 to 7 are bound by the aforesaid judgments.
808/92 are the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
The heirs of Harbans Singh, the plaintiffs, prayed for a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the property and that an order of injunction be granted restraining the State of Punjab the defendant from auctioning the property.
The plea of defendants 4 to 7 was also found against.
Therein, the appellants were defendants 4 to 7 in the suit and appellants in lower appellate companyrt and High Court.
The Maharaja of erstwhile State of Patiala gifted 115 bighas 4 biswas of land to one Harbans Singh.
The authorities were directed to take possession of the land from the appellants.
Mutation was effected in the name of Harbans Singh on 29.11.51.
Since the sale deeds executed by Harbans Singh in favour of the appellants were found to be illegal and void, numberright passed to the appellants.
174/77 and after numberice to the Collector and in the light of the averments made in the returns, the writ petition was dismissed.
1157/89.
They claimed that they are owners in possession of the property and prayed for injunction aquarist the State from auctioning the suit land.
The appellants are plaintiffs in Suit No.
The appellants in both the appeals are the same persons.
But the respondents are different in the two different suits and appeals.
Harbans Singh was number the full owner and on his death the property reverted to the State.
Therein, the suit was filed by Gurcharan Singh and others, the legal heirs of Harbans Singh, the transferor of the property to the appellants.
It was pleaded that the revenue record showed that after the death of Harbans Singh the property reverted to the State, and on this basis the State purported to lease out the property.
The short facts of the case relevant to understand the companytroversy are as follows.
507/91T dated 8.8.79.
