Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) DEFENDANT -Gram Panchayat is appellant before this Court and after loosing the case before the appellate Court in the appeal filed by plaintiff -Mam Chand, which was allowed by learned District Judge, Faridabad, has filed the present appeal. After the death of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 -Mam Chand, now his LRs are on record. Briefly, the facts of the case are that plaintiff -Mam Chand filed a suit for permanent injunction pleading therein that he was owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 31 kanals situated within the revenue estate of Village Karna, District Faridabad. Prior to the filing of the present suit, the question of ownership and title was decided in earlier suit No. 442 of 1973 vide judgment dated 16.12.1975 by the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Palwal. The plaintiff was declared owner in possession of the suit land by holding that the defendants were in any manner with the title of the suit property.
(2.) THE suit was contested by defendant No. 1 -Gram Panchayat by filing written statement, wherein, it was pleaded that plaintiff had no concern with the suit land and the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1975 was passed without having any jurisdiction which was null and void. The said judgment was not binding upon the rights of defendant No. 1 -Gram Panchayat. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues in the suit: - (1) Whether the plaintiff is an absolute owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP. (2) If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction? OPP. (3) Whether the question of title and ownership between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is not involved in this Court as alleged? OPD. (4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? (5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. (6) Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction as alleged? OPD. (7) Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder of the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as alleged? OPD. (8) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct etc. to file the present suit? OPD. (9) Whether the lessees of the suit land are the necessary party to the present suit as alleged? OPD. (10) Whether the decree/judgment in suit No. 442/73 decided on 16.12.1975 is null and void and has no effect as alleged? OPD. (11) Relief. On appraisal of evidence and perusal of record and evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.1985 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1975 passed in earlier suit was without any jurisdiction and same was null and void.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 15.5.1985, an appeal was filed by plaintiff -Mam Chand, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.1985 and judgment and decree dated 15.5.1985 passed by the trial Court was set aside. It was held by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff was in continuous possession over the suit land from 1979 to 1983 as was clear from Khasra Girdawari Ex. P -4. Thereafter defendant No. 1 -Gram Panchayat being not satisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court approached this Court by way of filing present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted on 6.2.1986.;