- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.5.1988 passed by the District Judge, Sonepat, by which the appeal filed by the defendant-respondent was allowed and the judgment and the decree dated 29.9.1986 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat (decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants) was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as alleged in the plaint, are that the agricultural land, in dispute in village Lehrara, was owned by Mange Ram; that this land was sold to Nawab Singh son of Phool Singh of village Chirasmi, vide registered sale-deed dated 7.10.1964; that thereafter Nawab Singh sold the land to several persons including the defendant-respondent, vide registered sale-deed dated 15.1.1965; that, after that, there was a partition among the purchasers and, as a result thereof, Killa No. 22/22/2, measuring 8 Marlas, came to the share of the defendant respondent; and that there was an error in the revenue record and it has been corrected by the Assistant Collector and the land in question now vests in the plaintiffs. The right and title of Paras Ram defendant-respondent in Killa No. 22/22/2 has been questioned. The area in dispute, is only 8 Marlas. In other words, the dispute is whether Killa No. 22/22/2 measuring 8 Marlas is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs-appellants or by Paras Ram defendant-respondent. Paras Ram defendant-respondent filed written statement wherein it was averred that the defendent-respondent and Harjinder Singh purchased the suit land from Nawab Singh, vide sale-deed dated 22.2.1965 for Rs. 7000/- and they have been in possession of the suit land and, prior to that, Nawab Singh, their predecessor-in-interest, had been in its possession. There was also a plea that the defendant-respondent had become owner by adverse possession as well and the plaintiffs-appellants were estopped from claiming themselves as owners of the suit land. It was further averred by the defendant-respondent that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the suit and that it was not properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 are the owners of the suit land, as alleged ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming themselves as owners of the suit land by their act and conduct, as alleged ? 3. Whether the defendant has become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession of the land described in para No. 5 of the written statement ? If so, to what effect ? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction, as alleged ? 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit ? 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fee ? The trial Court decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs- appellants and issue No. 3 was decided against the defendant-respondent. Under issue No. 4 it was held that the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction. Issue Nos. 5 and 6 were decided against the defendant-respondent and the suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was decreed by the trial Court.;