Regular Second Appeal No. 2388 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Regular Second Appeal No. 2388 of 1986 Date of decision: 7.3.2011 Punjab State through Collector Gurdaspur and another --- Appellants Versus Satnam Singh and others --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Ms. Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for the respondents. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 17.12.1985 whereby appeal carried by the Punjab State against the judgment and decree dated 28.1.1985 of the trial court was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed a suit for declaration against the appellants, averring that they were owners in possession in equal shares of land measuring 23 Kanals 7 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Lakhowal, Tehsil Gurdaspur, vide jamabandi for the year 1975-76 without any encumbrances, and the revenue record showing them as mortgagors and the Central Government Regular Second Appeal No. 2388 of 1986 2 as mortgagees was wrong, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from putting the said land to auction or selling the same. The defendants denied the averments made by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that the suit land was not got redeemed within the statutory period of 30 years from the date of mortgage and consequently the same vested in the custodian and was later acquired by the Central Government vide notification dated 21.10.1981. On these premises, it was pleaded that the Tehsildar Gurdaspur was competent to dispose of the suit land. The controversy led to various issues as detailed in the judgments of the courts below. The trial court returned a finding that the suit land did not vest in the custodian and the same could not be declared as evacuee property in view of Section 7-A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. It was, thus, held that the plaintiffs had become owners in possession of the suit land. The trial court also held that the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. While holding in the last that the State Government had not become owner of the suit land, the trial court decreed the suit. The appeal carried by the Punjab State was dismissed by the first appellate court. This is how the present appeal came to be filed on behalf of the Punjab State. During the pendency of the appeal, Civil Misc. Application No. 10281-C of 2010 was filed by the respondents, under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission of the Court to place on record conveyance deed dated 7.6.2010, Annexure R-1, as well as affidavits of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Annexures R2 and R-3 Regular Second Appeal No. 2388 of 1986 3 by way of additional evidence for proper adjudication of the dispute. It has been averred in the application that during the pendency of this appeal, the State Government has executed a conveyance deed of the suit land measuring 23 Kanals 7 Marlas in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on 7.6.2010. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the averments made in the application and submitted that in view of execution of the conveyance deed as aforesaid, this appeal has been rendered infructuous and deserves to be dispose of as such. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents did not dispute the said fact. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed as having been rendered infructuous. There will, however, be no order as to costs. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) March 7, 2011 JUDGE *rkmalik*