Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) THIS regular second appeal is against the judgment dated 03.06.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind whereby the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jind, has been dismissed.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS -Appellants filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Defendants -Respondents that they are owners in possession in equal shares of the suit land as fully detailed and described in the year 1955, the proprietors of Shmlat Patti Surdas of Village Thua, Tehsil and District Jind, gave the suit land to the father of Plaintiff, namely Ramdia, in lieu of the services rendered by him to the proprietor of the said patti. The father of the Plaintiffs remained in possession remained in possession of the suit land from 1955 till his death in the year 1992, without paying any rent or batai to the proprietors of the said patti. After the death of Ramdia in the year 1992, the Plaintiffs are in continuous and cultivating possession of the suit land. In the year 1985, the father of the Plaintiffs had acquired the status of occupancy tenant under the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenancy (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 read with the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. In view of the proprietors of the said patti in the suit land extinguished and all such rights vested in the father of the Plaintiffs w.e.f the 'Appointed Day'. The Plaintiffs being the successors of Ramida, have a right to be declared as owners in equal share of the suit land and the revenue record showing the Defendants -Respondents as owners of the suit land, is liable to be corrected. The Defendants -Respondents on the basis of wrong revenue entries and with ulterior motive, started threatening to dispossess the Plaintiffs -Appellants from the suit land and they are also adamant to alienate the suit land forcibly and illegally. The Plaintiffs -Appellants requested the Defendants -Respondents several times to desist from their illegal designs but they did not pay any heed to the said request. Notice of the suit was served upon Defendants -Respondents, who appeared and filed their joint written statement controverting the case of Plaintiffs -Appellants, wherein few preliminary objections have been taken regarding maintainability, cause of action and locus standi, limitation and jurisdiction. On merits, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have admitted almost the entire case of Plaintiffs -Appellants and only legal consequences of such possession and tenancy have been disputed. Out of the list of remaining proprietors of the said patti, Respondent Nos. 2, 18, 19, 26, 133 and 144 have appeared after issuance of process by way of munadi under order 1 rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure and have contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. The suit land was originally given by the proprietors of the said patti to the grandfather of the Plaintiffs -Appellants and after the death of their grandfather, namely Sahju son of Jas Ram, the suit land has come into possession of his four sons. It is further submitted that father of the Plaintiffs -Appellants, namely Ramdia never calculated the suit land to the exclusions of the other sons of Sahju or other male successors of the tenancy. The revenue record showing the possession of Ramdia alone over the suit land in the capacity of tenant at will, is wrong whereas all the male successors of Sahju should have been shown to be in possession of the suit land. The Defendants No. 290, 172, 947, 113, 715 and 680 have also contested the suit by filing their separate joint written statement almost on the similar pleas as taken by Defendants No. 2, 18, 19, 26, 133 and 144. Rest of the averments are denied and at last, a request has been made to dismiss the suit. In counter claim, the contesting Respondent Nos. 290, 172, 947, 113, 715 and 680 sought a decree for declaration ejecting the Plaintiffs -Appellants from their share i.e 1/4th share out of the total suit land measuring 28 kanals 19 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1999 -2000 as the father of the Plaintiffs -Appellants left the duty of carpentry service to Shamlat Patti Thua in the year 1960 and thereafter up to his death, he did not perform the duty of carpentry service to said patti and likewise the Appellant never did the carpentry service and as such, their right has been forfeited and they have no right to cultivate the land of their share because the land in dispute was given in the year 1920 to Sahju in lieu of service to be rendered by Sahju to Shamlat Patti Surdas. The possession of the land i.e 1/4th share out of the total land is also sought.
(3.) ON 15.07.2004, following issues were framed by the trial Court: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPD 2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled tot he decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPD 2 -A Whether the Plaintiffs are liable to be rejected from the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share as alleged in the counterclaim? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the Plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD;