SABINA, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF has filed a suit for permanent injunction that he was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 88 kanals. It was further averred in the plaint that the defendant was threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.
(2.) DEFENDANT in his written statement averred that he was in possession of the suit land as Gair Marusi tenant under the plaintiff for the last 30 years. The suit land was Banjar Kadim and had been made cultivable by the defendant after he came in possession of the same. The defendant had filed a suit for permanent injunction and the same was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.1981. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.1982. The Forest department had planted kikar trees in the suit property and the same were being looked after by the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant is in cultivating possession of the suit land as gair marusi tenant ? OPD 3.Whether the ejectment order dated 23.6.1984 and proceedings for deliver of possession are fictitious, not binding upon the rights of the defendant and liable to be set aside as alleged? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the suit in its present form is not maintainable ? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by way of his own act and conduct to file the suit? OPD R.S.A.No. 444 of 1999(O&M) 3 9. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands if so, if what effect? OPD 10. Whether the defendant is entitled to special cost under Section 35-A CPC ? OPD 11. Relief." The Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.1998, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Appeal filed by the defendant through his legal representatives was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of the defendants.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.;