Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) FACTS leading to present regular second appeal are as under:
(2.) IN the present case, suit was filed for possession of agricultural land measuring 153 kanals 10 marlas comprising in killa numbers duly described in heading of the plaint situated in Village Sargheri, Tehsil and District Sangrur, on the basis of title by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 -Plaintiffs against the present Appellants and proforma Respondent -Defendants. It has been averred that Respondent -Plaintiffs have acquired ownership right of the land in dispute vide sale deed dated 19.1.1951 executed in favour of Sardar Assa Singh son of Sardar Gurbachan Singh, i.e., predecessor -in -interest of Plaintiffs by previous owners Gurdial Singh son of Jaimal Singh and Smt. Harnam Kaur widow of Sewa Singh. Appellant -Defendants Mit Singh and Sadhu Singh are continuing in possession of the land in dispute as Managers and Mohtmims of Dharamshala of village Sargheri as they are claiming themselves to be so, however, their possession over the land in dispute is unauthorized. Chuhar Singh is also alleged to be in possession of the suit land and hence he has also been arrayed as Defendant. Gurdial Singh, Joginder Singh and Inder Singh, minor through his brother Joginder Singh, have also been impleaded as parties. On refusal of Defendants to hand over the possession of the land in dispute to Respondent -Plaintiffs in recognition of the right of the ownership of the suit land, the present suit has been filed. It has also been averred that Sardar Assa Singh had also filed a suit for possession of the suit land against Dharamshala Sargheri, which was decreed by learned trial Court. However, in appeal the plaint was rejected only oft the ground that no suit could be filed against Dharamshala and hence it is stated that the same is having no bearing on the present suit. The suit was contested by present Appellant -Defendants by taking the plea that previous owner, namely, Gurdial Singh, Defendant No. 4 had executed a gift deed in favour of Dharamshala of the village on 18.10.2006 B.K. and since then Dharamshala is in possession of the suit land and that the entries regarding gift have also been made in the revenue record and the mutation has been sanctioned in favour of Dharamshala on the basis of the said gift deed. It is further averred that the Plaintiffs also filed an appeal for correction of said revenue entries and remained unsuccessful upto highest revenue Court. Hence, it is contended that sale transaction effected by Defendant No. 4 in favour of Assa Singh is null and void, ineffective and in -operative quq rights of Dharamshala because at the time of execution of the sale -deed, Defendant No. 4 was left with no right in the property in dispute. Plea has also been taken that Dharamshala is in possession of the land in dispute for the last 20 -21 years and hence, the suit has not been instituted within prescribed period of limitation.
(3.) IN the replication, Respondent -Plaintiffs re -asserted their claim and controverted the assertions of contesting Appellant -Defendants. It has been stated that no such alleged gift deed was executed in favour of Dharamshala and if there is any such alleged gift deed, the same is null and void and having no effect on the rights of Respondent -Plaintiffs. It has been specifically pleaded that Plaintiffs are owners of the land in dispute vide sale -deed dated 19.1.1951 for consideration of Rs. 10,000/ - and hence, Defendants cannot acquire any title on the suit property on the basis of alleged gift deed. It has also been averred that the sale -deed in favour of predecessor -in -interest of present Respondent -Plaintiffs is a registered document and hence, if there is any alleged unregistered gift -deed in favour of Appellant -Defendants, the same is having no effect on the rights of Respondent -Plaintiffs, as their predecessor -in -interest Assa Singh was a bona fide purchaser for consideration.;