(1.) FACTS giving rise to the present Regular Second Appeal are as under :-
(2.) SHOP No. 34 in New Market (Shopping Centre) Putligarh, Amritsar, was sold to one Hoshnak Singh by the Punjab Government. However, he refused to take the possession of the same and to deposit the sale price for the reason that its main entrance was covered by the wall of the adjoining shops. Hence, the shop was later on transferred by way of sale to Nand Lal. On request of Nand Lal, he was allowed to use vacant site, i.e. Phari adjacent to shop No. 28, by the then Deputy Commissioner. He was also allowed to instal a wooden khokha on the said site. Subsequently, the said shop No. 34 was transferred in equal shares to Des Raj and Inderjit. Both of them thereafter sold the same to Sardari Lalplaintiff, since deceased and represented by his legal heirs, i.e. present appellants, who were brought on record during the pendency of the present litigation. Permission for use and occupation of the said site was also granted to Des Raj and Inderjit and however, no such permission was granted to Sardari Lal-deceased.
(3.) CASE of present appellants, i.e., legal representatives of plaintiff- Sardari Lal is that they were not required to seek permission of Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, for purchasing the said site from previous owner and for renting out the said wooden khokha to Kamal Kishore, i.e., respondent- defendant No. 4 and that rather use and occupation of the said site was part of sale of shop No. 34 to plaintiff-Sardari Lal (deceased) and that he was having legal right to construct khokha over the said site and to induct a tenant in the same. Hence, a suit for declaration was sought by plaintiff -Sardari Lal (deceased) that his use and occupation of the wooden khokha and the site underneath it, situated on the eastern side of shop No. 28 was regular, valid and legal with consequential relief of injunction restraining respondent-defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from dispossessing him through his tenant Kamal Kishore from the said site and khokha.