- (1.) Application filed for condoning delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is allowed, in view of averments made in the application, which are duly supported by affidavit.
(2.) The delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application has been filed for impleading the legal heirs of deceased-Jeeta Singh (who was plaintiff before the Courts below). The legal heirs are mentioned in para no. 2 of the application. The application is supported by an affidavit of Ravi Kumar s/o deceased-Jeet Singh @ Jeeta Singh. Application is allowed, subject to just exceptions. Legal heirs of deceased-Jeeta Singh are allowed to be brought on record and they are allowed to pursue the appeal. Application has been filed for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of judgment and decree dated 22.09.2010 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dabwali. Application is allowed, subject to just exceptions. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff, who are aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that he is owner and in possession as co-sharer over the land measuring 152 kanals 15 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 215, which also includes the suit land comprising in Rect. No. 47 Killa No. 16/1 (4-4) Gair Mumkin Janglat situated within the revenue estate of village Shergarh, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. The plaintiff had also challenged the alleged Rapat No. 364 dated 02.07.1998 entered and sanctioned on the basis of the order dated 09.05.1998 vide which, the khasra girdawari regarding land comprised in Rect. No. 47 Killa No. 16/1 (4-0) Gair Mumkin Janglat i.e. land in dispute had been ordered to be corrected in favour of the defendant as wrong, against law and facts, null and void, ab initio, without authority, without jurisdiction and without notice to him. It was further pleaded that no such order had been passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Dabwali and no notice had been given to him while passing such order. It was alleged that in April, 2005, the defendant had tried to oust the plaintiff from the suit land on the basis of the order dated 09.05.1998 and after making inquiries and after trying to obtain certified copies of the order but it transpired that the application was returned with the report that no such order exists in the record. Hence, the present suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is owner and in possession as cosharer over the land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas.
(3.) The defendant appeared and filed written statement wherein, certain preliminary objections were taken including maintainability of suit, cause of action, concealment of true and material facts and denied that the plaintiff was a co-sharer and submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to 307/3055 share in Khewat No. 215 measuring 152 kanals 15 marlas i.e. 15 kanals 7 marlas of land and he had already transferred 34 kanals 18 marlas of land in specific killa numbers comprised in Khatoni No. 463 of Khewat No. 215 to Smt. Raj Rani and others. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was left with no interest in khewat of the suit land and he has no locus standi to file the present suit as owner/co-sharer. It was further alleged that the suit land was being cultivated by the defendant for the last 15 years and, therefore, he was also owner in adverse possession. The defendant had planted Amrood/Guava trees on the suit land which are nearly 4 years old and he is in continuous possession and the plaintiff was not in possession. It is further alleged that that order dated 09.05.1998 was passed after giving notices to all concerned persons. Taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1. Whether plainti is owner in possession as cosharer over the land falling in Rect. No. 47 Killa No. 16/1 of village Shergarh, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa OPP 2. Whether the order dated 9.5.1998 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Dabwali, is liable to be set aside being illegal, void abinitio and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff OPP 3. If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the suit land OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plainti is not maintainable in the present form OPD 5. Whether the plainti has concealed the true and material facts from this Court OPD 6. Relief.";