- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs who are aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby their suit for joint possession had been dismissed. The plaintiffs filed the suit pleading that they were owners of 9 kanals 18 marlas out of total land 19 kanals 17 marlas as per Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 in village Kala Ghanupur, Tehsil and District Amritsar.
(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiffs No.1 to 3 were the owners to the extent of 1/3rd share and plaintiff no.4 was the owner of 1/6th share out of the total land measuring 19 kanals 17 marlas and their share comes to 9 kanals 18 marlas. It was alleged that defendant no.1 was the owner to the extent of 1/3rd share but he had sold more than his share out of the suit land and he was only entitled to 1/3rd share out of the joint Khata. As far as share of defendants no.2 to 14, they had no right, title or interest in the suit land and the plaintiffs were the owners to the extent pleaded. Accordingly, it was prayed that the decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for joint possession.
(3.) The suit was contested by defendant no.1 on various grounds including maintainability, cause of action, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as all the co-sharers and transferees had not been made party to the suit. The fact that the plaintiffs were estopped from their act and conduct from filing the suit and the suit was not within time was also pleaded. It was specifically submitted that plaintiffs No.1 to 3 had already sold their shares in the joint Khata to defendant no.7 vide registered sale deed dated 31.7.1968 for consideration and, therefore, they had been left with no right, title or interest in the suit land and the suit had been filed only to harass the defendants. Defendant No.1 pleaded that he had sold the suit land within his share and was still a co-sharer and in joint possession of the suit land. The replication was filed denying the averments of the written statement including the fact that the plaintiffs had sold their shares in the joint khata to defendant no.7 as alleged.;