- (1.)THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge I Class, Ludhiana. dated November 10 1989, directing the issuance of warrants of possession alongwith the Jamabandi to Assistant Collector I Grade with a direction to comply with the decree, and the order dated January 24, 1992, ordering issuance of warrants of possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 491, 492 and 493. executable through Tehsildar, Ludhiana.
(2.)UNDISPUTABLY, the petitioner-plaintiffs (hereinafter the plaintiffs) filed a suit for possession of land measuring 9 Bighas 11 Biswas comprised in Khewat No. 344, Khatauni No. 552, Khasra Nos. 491, 492 and 493, situate in village Malaud Rorian, tehsil and district Ludhiana, after demolishing the structures illegally raised by Dhani Ram, defendant No. 1 (since deceased), who is represented by his legal representatives, viz respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 15 in this petition. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated March' 15, 1969 The plaintiffs successfully assailed the judgment and decree of the trial Judge before the first appellate Court. A perusal of para 10 of the judgment dated April 27, 1970, rendered by the first appellate Court, reveals that on the disputed land there is a 'mandir' (temple) and the remaining land adjoins the same The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was challenged by the defendants in R. S. A. No. 1138 of 1970 and the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and decree dated October 29, 1981. a perusal of the judgment of the leaned Single Judge reveals that the predecessor-in interest of respondents No. 1,2 and 15 had claimed ownership over the disputed land. His plea was negatived by observing thus : -
"after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that no ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the appellant for the framing of the issues, as prayed for by him and to remand the case for the trial of those issues, It would be pertinent to observe that in the written statement, nowhere a plea which may support the contention of the learned counsel, has been raised by Dhani Ram, defendant No. 1, who has since died; rather defendant No. 1 has claimed his ownership in the land, as well as the shops, as is evident from the specific plea taken in the written statement in para 4 which reads as under : 'para No. 4 is wrong and denied. The shops in question were constructed by the defendant about 40 (forty) years back and ever since then the defendant is in possession of these shops. The site on which the shops were constructed by the defendant 40 years ago belongs to the Mandir. As the said Mandir was constructed by the defendant's fore-fathers, so the defendant is both its Pujari and owner of this site as well as of the shops The defendant has let out these shops since more than 20 years and is the rightful owner of these shops. Defendant Nos. 2 to 3 are tenants under defendant No. 1 since long and the defendant has spent large sums on the construction of these shops. ' Faced with this situation, Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant, has drawn my attention to the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiffs, wherein an alternative plea has been taken in para 5, which read as under : 'that in the alternative if it be held that the land in dispute was utilized by the Shivala then again the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession as the structures have been raised by defendant No. 1 in contravention of the purpose for which the land was utilized by the Shivala and defendant No. 1 had no right to change the purpose No change in the land could be made without the permission and consent of the plaintiffs who are the owners of the land. ' In my view, the aforesaid plea, which has been taken in the alternate, does not in any way help the learned counsel for the appellant, especially when at no stage during the trial or in the first appeal, it was ever urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that the income arising out of the shops was being urged for the purpose of the Shivala. As earlier observed, the whole case of defendant No. 1 is based on the pica of ownership of the Shivala and the adjacent land attached to the Shivala. In this situation, no case has been made out by the defendant for the framing of any new issues on the pleas which have been reproduced above. In this situation, the application for permission to adduce the additional evidence stands rejected. "

(3.)THE decree passed in a civil suit has to be interpreted in conjunction with the findings recorded in the body of the judgment. On the deputed land, there was a Shivala and shops had also been constructed on a part of the disputed land and some area was lying vacant.