IQBAL SINGH,J - (1.) PLAINTIFF -appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction on the allegations that their father Jhanda Singh was the owner of the suit land who dies three years prior to the filing of the suit. Mutation No. 4714 was sanctioned in favour of the Punjab Government as the suit land had been declared surplus on 22.2.1961. According to the plaintiffs, in view of the provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1973, if a son of a land owner was major on 24.1.1971, he would be entitled to one unit i.e. seven hectares of land. It was alleged that plaintiffs Tek Singh and Shamsher Singh who were aged 50 and 37 years, respectively on the date of filing of the suit had attained majority on 24.4.1971 and they were also in possession of the land and, therefore, they were entitled to one unit of land each on 24.1.1971. On the strength of the above, the plaintiff challenged mutation No. 4714 and the allotment of land in question to Gurdev Singh defendant as being illegal, null and void. The plaintiffs also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 3 Gurdev Singh from forcibly dispossessing them from the suit land.
(2.) SUIT was contested. Defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement, raised preliminary objections that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the present suit; the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit under Section 47 of the Pepsu Tenancy Act and under Section 21 of the Land Reforms Act, 1972; the present suit is not maintainable in the present form; the plaintiffs have not served notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the suit is time barred and that the application moved by Jhanda Sing father of the plaintiffs had already been dismissed on 29.5.1962 by the Commissioner, Patiala and no appeal was preferred against that order. On merits, it was pleaded that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have got mutated Khewat No. 1392/2610 belonging to Jhanda Singh as per the jamabandi for the year 1980-81. It was further pleaded that on 22.2.1961 the land was declared surplus and the appeals by Jhanda Singh were dismissed upto the level of Commissioner, Patiala. It was further stated that the suit land had been allotted to Gurdev Singh son of Bazir Singh and the possession had also been delivered to him through Kanungo Halka vide rapat No. 496 dated 27.8.1988. Defendant No. 3 in his separate written statement took preliminary objections that the civil Court had no right to hear the case; the plaintiffs have not served notice under Section 80 of the Code; the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the present suit; the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the defendants; the suit is not maintainable in the present form. It was also stated that the present suit had become infructuous as (he) defendant No. 3 had taken possession of the suit land and he also deposited compensation to the tune of Rs. 1050/- and the plaintiffs have not disclosed true facts to the Court. On merits, it was reiterated that he (defendant No. 3) had taken possession of the suit land vide rapat No. 496 dated 27.8.1988.
(3.) PLAINTIFFS filed replication controverting the allegations contained in the written statement. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, besides that of relief : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit land ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from allotting the suit land to defendant No. 3 and dispossessing the plaintiff ? OPP 3. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. ? OPD 5 Whether the defendant No. 3 had already taken possession in the suit land ? If so, its effect ? OPD. ;