JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 11.4.1985, passed by Additional District Judge (II), Bhatinda.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Ramji Dass etc. Respondents, filed a suit against the Appellants seeking (1) declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of 8 kanals 6 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 835 situated in the area of Village Raman Mandi and (2) for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from recovering the land revenue in respect thereto and also from dispossessing them forcibly there from first prayer was declined by the trial court whereas the second prayer was accepted and the relief of permanent injunction was granted to them and their possession thereon was ordered to be kept intact. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of first part of their claim filed in the suit, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Ist Appellate Court. The case of the respondents/appellants is that Ramji Dass,plaintiff, Paras Ram, father of plaintiff, appellants 2 to 6 and Chiranji Lal, defendant No.4 had jointly purchased 5 Bighas and 1 Biswas of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1140/990 and 991 in village Raman Mandi from one Gulam Din on 5.6.1947 for a consideration of Rs. 400/-. The sale deed was scribed and possession was delivered to them on the said date and they were in possession of the property, which was allotted to them in lieu of that land in the course of consolidation proceedings. The defendants were threatening the plaintiffs to dispossess them from the land and to recover the revenue on the pretext that the said land was evacuee property after Gulam Din migrated to Pakistan. It was the further case of Ramji Dass etc. that as they are in possession of the land for the last 30 years, they have acquired the proprietory rights by the efflux of time.
(3.) Defendants/respondents No. 1 to 3 did not file any written statement. Their defence was ordered to be struck off. The Civil Court observed that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the property in dispute was evacuee property and partly decreed the suit in the favour of the plaintiffs.;