An order was passed on 20 9 1968 by the Assistant Collector in which a companydition was imposed that the tenants should be resettled on areas equal to the areas in their possession.
The District Judge has found, after accepting the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, that after the ejectment orders were passed against the defendants they were dispossessed on 27 10 1969.
He found also as a fact that the respondents were dispossessed in execution of the order of eviction passed by the Assistant Collector and they ceased to be tenants.
He filed an application under Section 9 1 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 for eviction of the respondents herein, who were his tenants.
One of the tenants filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ferozepur for declaration that the order of the Collector was number valid and for a declaration that he companytinued to be a tenant in possession.
The respondents filed suits for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the possession of the land.
The order was executed and possession was handed over to the owner on 27 10 1969.
The companytention raised by the appellants in the High Court was that dispossession was in pursuance of an order passed by a Magistrate who had numberjurisdiction in the matter and therefore, such dispossession was a nullity.
Mahadeo Prasad had sold the land to the appellants herein on 11 6 1973.
On appeal the District Judge held that the finding in the earlier proceedings that the respondents were trespassers would operate as res judicata.
The respondents herein took possession of the land once again on 17 5 1970.
According to the plaintiffs in those suits they were tenants in possession and companyld number be evicted except in due companyrse of law.
But during the pendency of that suit, he admitted that he was number in possession of the land.
One Mahadeo Prasad was the owner of lands which form the subject matter of these appeals.
On recording the said admission the suit was dismissed.
That judgment was challenged in second appeal.
