M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) This is plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur dated 28,5.1980. The learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur has reversed the findings of the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 29.10.1979. Aggrieved by the order of the reversal of the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, the plaintiffs -appellants (for brevity 'the plaintiffs') have filed the present appeal seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur.
(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming that defendant No. 1 Jang Singh was owner in possession of the suit land according to the Jamabandi for the year 1975 -76 of village Lbhatwaddi Tehsil Male'rkotla. It was further claimed that Suijit Singh and Hardeep Singh, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had no connection with the suit property. Further case set up by the plaintiffs is that defendant No. 1 Jang Singh had sold the suit property to the plaintiffs by executing four sate deeds on 6.6.1978 which could not be registered because in a separate suit, defendant No. 2 and 3 were granted ad interim injunction by the Civil Court restraining defendant No. 1 from alienating the suit property. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that Jang Singh, defendant No. 1, had delivered possession of the suit land to them on 6.6.1978 and rapt rojnamcha wakiati which was lodged in this regard on 7.6.1978 with the Patwari also supports this version. In order to protect their possession against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 a suit was filed seeking permanent prohibitory injunction.
(3.) The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by setting up a plea that the plaintiffs are not owner in possession of the suit and nor they are entitled to seek permanent perpetual injunction. They asserted that the land is joint Hindu family property of the defendants and its sale by four unregistered sale deeds dated 6.6.1978 in favour of the plaintiffs was neither for consideration nor for any legal necessity.;