- (1.) The present regular second appeal has been filed by the LRs of the defendant who are aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction of the plaintiffs has been decreed. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction whereby they sought injunction that the defendant should be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs and from harvesting the wheat crops sown by them in the suit land measuring 120 kanals 6 marlas, details of the same is given in the heading of the plaint which is situated in Village Bhainiya, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04.
(2.) The plaintiffs alleged that they were jointly cultivating the suit property and made the suit land fit for cultivation after spending huge amount of money and were in possession of the same. The land is situated across Indo Pak border and identity cards have been duly issued to the plaintiffs by the Border Security Force for cultivating the land during day time under the supervision of BSF. The, averments were that the defendant was earlier helping the plaintiffs in cultivating the suit land on the payment of some of the crops to the defendant and the entries in the revenue record are in the name of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the defendant, in connivance with some of the BSF officials wanted to dispossess the plaintiffs and thus, injunction was prayed for.
(3.) The defendant, in his written statement, took the plea that the plaintiffs were estopped as they had relinquished their possession in favour of the defendant vide agreement to sell dated 19.06.2006 and the defendant was in possession, and therefore, the plaintiffs could not claim the relief of injunction. The land was owned by the Forest Department and it was alleged that khasra girdawari had been wrongly recorded. The defendant also filed a counter-claim for relief of injunction by the plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiffs had delivered possession to the counter-claimants and they received a sum of Rs. 3,06,000/- and had nothing to do with the suit property and the plaintiffs were trying to take advantage of their name in the revenue records, and accordingly, prayed that the counter-claim be decreed and permanent injunction should be granted. The counterclaim was objected to on the ground that the possession of the suit land was never delivered and the defendant had failed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as only a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- had been paid and the agreement remained unexecuted.;