M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.)THIS is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) against the judgment of reversal accepting the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent holding that the plaintiff-respondents were entitled to injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit land as per details given in the heading of the plaint.
(2.)FACTS in brief are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a Civil Suit No. 43 of 1982 on 23.1.1982 seeking a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-respondents were owner in possession of the plot comprised in Khewat No. 428 Min. measuring 1 Kanal 10 Marlas situated at Safidon (Haryana). It was further prayed that the sale deed executed by defendant-respondent No. 7 in favour of the defendant-appellants on 11.12.1981 be declared void ab initio as it has been executed without any right or authority. It was claimed that it does not effect the rights of the plaintiff-respondents. A further prayer made was that defendant-appellants be restrained from forcibly occupying the suit land and interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondents. The alternative prayer was also made that the plaintiff-respondents be delivered back the possession if they were not found to be in possession or deprived of possession forcibly during the pendency of the suit. It was still further claimed that the plaintiff Lajja Ram (who is now represented by his LRs) and proforma-defendant No. 8 have been the owners in possession in equal shares of the disputed land and a decree to that effect was passed by the Civil Judge in Civil Suit titled Lajja Ram v. Bharat Bhushan decided on 4.8.1979 and the same has been upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. An apprehension was expressed that defendant-respondent No. 1 through his Power of Attorney has sold the aforementioned land through the registered sale deed to defendant-appellants although he knew that the land did not belong to him.
In their written statement, defendant-appellants who are the venders took the stand that neither plaintiff Lajja Ram nor defendant-respondent No. 8 were owners nor in possession of the land. They further claimed that the decree dated 4.8.1979 passed by the Civil Court or the appeal decided on 5.11.1981 by the Additional District Judge is not binding on their rights as they were not parties to the afore-mentioned litigation. It was further urged that the judgment and decree on which reliance was placed by the plaintiff-respondents were not in respect of the land, which has been subject matter of sale of the sale deed dated 11.12.1981. However, they claimed that defendant-respondent No. 7 the vendor being a co-sharer in the joint Khewat No. 614 of Killa No. 421 as per Jamabandi for the year 1974-75 had every right to sell the land to the defendant-appellants. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :-

"1. Whether the plaintiff and the proforma defendant are co-owners of the property under dispute ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the plot under dispute ? OPP. 3. Whether the sale-deed in favour of the defendants No. 1 and 2 registered at No. 955 on 12.12.1981 is null and void and not effective on the rights to the plaintiff and proforma defendant, if so to what effect ? OPP. 4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. If so, what should be correct valuation ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 6. Relief."
The trial Court dismissed the suit and decided all the vital issues against plaintiff-respondents.
(3.)THE learned Additional District Judge, Jind has reversed the judgment of the trial Court and has reached the conclusion that the land, which was subject matter of the sale deed dated 11.12.1981 is different and has got nothing to do with the land in respect of which injunction has been claimed by the plaintiff-respondents. The trial Court found that the land purchased by defendant-appellants from defendant-respondent No. 7 is different from the suit land. The plaintiff-respondents were neither held to be owner nor in possession of the suit land and the issues No. 1 and 2 were accordingly decided against the plaintiff-respondents and in favour of the defendant- appellants. It was further held under issue No. 3 that the sale deed executed by defendant-respondent No. 7 in favour of defendant-appellants on 11.12.1981 is not void ab initio because defendant-respondent No. 7 has been a co-sharer in Khasra No. 428. Therefore, the defendant-appellants also became co-sharer. The findings recorded on issue No. 4 were that defendant-appellants were in possession of the plot purchased by them vide registered sale deed dated 11.12.1981 and the said pot is not the land in dispute. So the issue was decided accordingly. Issue No. 5 was decided against the defendant-appellants and the suit was held to be maintainable. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal the findings recorded by the trial Court on issues No. 1 to 4 were challenged and the learned Additional District Judge held that once the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the land purchased by defendant- appellants from defendant-respondent No. 7 is different than the suit land, then it should have recorded the finding as to whether the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff-respondents. It could not have held that the land, which is covered by the sale deed Ex. P-1 dated 11.12.1981 is different than the suit land, then the plaintiff-respondents were not owner in possession. The views of the learned Additional District Judge on the afore- mentioned issues read as under :-
"The approach made by the trial Court appears to be wrong in the present case. The trial Court took the view that it was for the plaintiff to prove that the land purchased by defendants No. 1 and 2 is the suit land. To this contention, I do not agree. The case of plaintiff in the plaint was that he is owner in possession of the land in suit that the defendants No. 1 and 2 purchased this very land vide their sale deed and as such they should be restrained from interfering in his possession on the land in suit. If the finding of the trial Court is to the effect that the land purchased by defendants is different then the land in dispute is bound to be owned and possessed by the plaintiff and if the land in suit is the same which has been purchased by the defendants then the trial court should have again recorded the finding whether it is the plaintiff who is owner in possession of the land in suit or not. In the face of finding recorded by the trial court to the effect that the land purchased by the defendants is different from the land in suit the finding of the trial court that the land in suit is not owned and possessed by the plaintiff cannot be upheld."