Harjit Kaur and Other Vs. State of Punjab & Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 16928-29 of 1996
Petitioner: Harjit Kaur and Other
Respondent: State of Punjab & Others
Apeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 16928-29 of 1996
Judges: Dr. A.S. Anand, V.N. Khare & M. Srinivasan, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 30, 1998
Head Note:
PACKAGE DEALS
Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976
Claim based on sale-deed dated 24-11-58 and judgment and decree dated 16-3-64 – Said decree becoming doubtful in view of death certificate dated 13-8-83 – Matter pending in Court, resolved. Held that Chief Sales Commissioner shall examine the case as per compromise decree, and grant relief as granted to other oustees of the village.(Para 2)
Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976
Claim based on sale-deed dated 24-11-58 and judgment and decree dated 16-3-64 – Said decree becoming doubtful in view of death certificate dated 13-8-83 – Matter pending in Court, resolved. Held that Chief Sales Commissioner shall examine the case as per compromise decree, and grant relief as granted to other oustees of the village.(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellants are Plaintiffs 4 to 7 in Civil Suit No. 134 of 1997 which was filed in the Court of the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana. We need not trace the history of the case. The High Court , while dealing with their case, opined thus:
“Case of Plaintiffs 4 to 7 is based upon the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Smt. Sahib Devi in favour of one Sarwan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of these plaintiffs and suffering a decree by her in his favour. The writ petitioner has placed on record a death certificate issued by Chief Regis-trar (Birth and Death), Annexure P-10, wherein her date of death is recorded as 13-8-1963. Basis of the claim of these plaintiffs is the sale deed date 24-11-1958 and the judgment and decree of the civil court dated 16-3-1964. This latter document, i.e., the judgment and decree dated 16-3-1964 becomes doubtful in view of death certificate Annexure P-10 dated 13-8-1983. Counsel for the respondent made an oblique reference to the pendency of the suit allegedly having been filed by legal heirs of Smt. Sahib Devi against the successor-in-interest of Sarwan Singh, Plaintiffs 4 to 7. Thus, their claim is again subject-matter of adjudication before the civil court. So, till such time this dispute is resolved, i.e., whether Smt. Sahib Devi bona fidely executed a sale deed in favour of Sarwan singh or somebody else appeared on her behalf (as alleged by the con-testing respondents) no immediate relief can be given to these plaintiffs as has been done in case of Plaintiffs 1 to 3. In case the plaintiffs ultimately succeed in proving the due execution of the sale deed in favour of Sarwan Singh as well as the decree allegedly suffered by Smt. Sahib Devi in favour of Sarwan Singh, their case may also be examined by Defendant 2 and appropriate relief be granted like other oustees of Dhole-wal Village, i.e., conferring of ownership rights in respect of land as per their entitlement.”
2. We are informed that the dispute between the appellants and the heirs of Smt. Sahib Devi has since been resolved by a com-promise decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Divi-sion, Ludhiana on 28-9-1996. Since the dispute between the appellants and the heirs of Smt. Sahib Devi has now been re-solved by a compromise decree, it is for the appellants, as directed by the High Court (supra), to approach the Chief Sales Commissioner under the Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, (Defendant 2) for appropriate relief. On being so ap-proached by an application, Defendant 2 shall grant relief to the appellants in the same manner as has been granted to the other oustees of Dholewal Village on whom ownership rights had been conferred in lieu of the land left by them in Dholewal Village and as per their entitlement as determined by the civil court in the compromise decree. The learned Chief Sales Commis-sioner shall decide the question of grant of relief on the basis of the compromise decree, after hearing all necessary parties. The learned Chief Sales Commissioner shall dispose of the matter within six months from the date on which an applica-tion is filed before him by the appellants.
3. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
1. The appellants are Plaintiffs 4 to 7 in Civil Suit No. 134 of 1997 which was filed in the Court of the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana. We need not trace the history of the case. The High Court , while dealing with their case, opined thus:
“Case of Plaintiffs 4 to 7 is based upon the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Smt. Sahib Devi in favour of one Sarwan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of these plaintiffs and suffering a decree by her in his favour. The writ petitioner has placed on record a death certificate issued by Chief Regis-trar (Birth and Death), Annexure P-10, wherein her date of death is recorded as 13-8-1963. Basis of the claim of these plaintiffs is the sale deed date 24-11-1958 and the judgment and decree of the civil court dated 16-3-1964. This latter document, i.e., the judgment and decree dated 16-3-1964 becomes doubtful in view of death certificate Annexure P-10 dated 13-8-1983. Counsel for the respondent made an oblique reference to the pendency of the suit allegedly having been filed by legal heirs of Smt. Sahib Devi against the successor-in-interest of Sarwan Singh, Plaintiffs 4 to 7. Thus, their claim is again subject-matter of adjudication before the civil court. So, till such time this dispute is resolved, i.e., whether Smt. Sahib Devi bona fidely executed a sale deed in favour of Sarwan singh or somebody else appeared on her behalf (as alleged by the con-testing respondents) no immediate relief can be given to these plaintiffs as has been done in case of Plaintiffs 1 to 3. In case the plaintiffs ultimately succeed in proving the due execution of the sale deed in favour of Sarwan Singh as well as the decree allegedly suffered by Smt. Sahib Devi in favour of Sarwan Singh, their case may also be examined by Defendant 2 and appropriate relief be granted like other oustees of Dhole-wal Village, i.e., conferring of ownership rights in respect of land as per their entitlement.”
2. We are informed that the dispute between the appellants and the heirs of Smt. Sahib Devi has since been resolved by a com-promise decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Divi-sion, Ludhiana on 28-9-1996. Since the dispute between the appellants and the heirs of Smt. Sahib Devi has now been re-solved by a compromise decree, it is for the appellants, as directed by the High Court (supra), to approach the Chief Sales Commissioner under the Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, (Defendant 2) for appropriate relief. On being so ap-proached by an application, Defendant 2 shall grant relief to the appellants in the same manner as has been granted to the other oustees of Dholewal Village on whom ownership rights had been conferred in lieu of the land left by them in Dholewal Village and as per their entitlement as determined by the civil court in the compromise decree. The learned Chief Sales Commis-sioner shall decide the question of grant of relief on the basis of the compromise decree, after hearing all necessary parties. The learned Chief Sales Commissioner shall dispose of the matter within six months from the date on which an applica-tion is filed before him by the appellants.
3. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
