Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff -appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.
(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in his ownership and possession over the disputed plot and further from dispossessing him forcibly or in any other manner. It was pleaded that the plaintiff -appellant had purchased the disputed plot situated in Shahbad vide registered sale deed dated 27.3.1981 from one Ishar Singh son of Sondhi Ram. He claimed to be in possession of the said plot since the year 1977 that is the date of agreement to purchase in the capacity of a prospective vendee. Plaintiff -appellant, accordingly, claimed to be owner in possession of the suit property. He apprehended that the defendants, who had no right, title or interest in the suit property were wanting to take possession thereof forcibly. Accordingly, the suit for permanent injunction was instituted. Defendants filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff himself is the son of the alleged vendor namely Ishar Singh and further that Ishar Singh himself has no right, title or interest RSA No. 937 of 1989 -2 -in the disputed plot and as such the plaintiff could not acquire a better title. The possession of the plaintiff was disputed and it was pleaded by defendant no.1 that in fact the possession of the disputed plot on his behalf was with his wife and son namely Nachattro Devi and Balbir Singh respectively. The positive stand taken by the defendants was that the disputed plot was lying vacant and belonged to Guru Ravi Dass Sabha and the aforementioned Sabha on 18.10.1977 executed two sale deeds in favour of Nachattro Devi and Balbir Singh as regards the disputed plot and the possession was also delivered to them through defendant no.1. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the plaintiff purchased on plot through valid sale deed 27.3.81 as described in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP (2) Whether the boundaries of the plot given by the plaintiff are correct.? OPP. (3) Whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit plot since 1977, as alleged? OPP. (4) Whether the suit is bad for mis -joinder of parties? OPD (5) Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties? OPD (6) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (7) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (8) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD (9) Relief.
(3.) THE suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra on 9.12.1986 by returning a finding that the plaintiff was RSA No. 937 of 1989 -3 -neither the owner nor in possession of the disputed plot. Being dissatisfied the plaintiff filed an appeal and vide order dated 17.12.1987 the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra has dismissed the appeal. Resultantly, the second appeal before this Court.;