- (1.) Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide decree dated 17.02.2011. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the said decree also failed and was, accordingly, dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.04.2012. That is how, the plaintiffs are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.
(2.) In a suit filed by the plaintiffs, a declaration was prayed for that the plaintiffs were the owners in actual, physical and cultivating possession, exclusively over the agricultural land bearing Rect. No.82, Killa No.9/1, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20/1, 19, 18 and 2, and the remaining land was in possession of the defendants comprised in Khewat No.66, Khatauni Nos.83, 84 and 85, total land meausring 111 kanals and 08 marlas. The said land was purported to be still joint between the parties as the same has not been partitioned as per law. Thus, the order dated 13.06.2003 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Alewa in file No.36/ACII/Alewa vide which Naksha Be was confirmed in the partition proceedings, was wholly illegal and void, and so were the orders passed by the Collector Sub Division, Jind, dated 07.08.2003 and the order dated 02.01.2007 passed by the Commissioner, vide which their appeals were dismissed. All subsequent proceedings, pursuant to the said orders of partition of the agricultural land, were purported to be illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs. Therefore, it was prayed that the said land be treated as jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the lis and consequently, a decree for injunction be issued restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the said land in execution of the orders passed in the partition proceedings.
(3.) Briefly, defendants No.1 to 4, in their defence raised an issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit and on merits they admitted description of the land being a matter of record. It was maintained that defendants No.1 to 4 were owners in joint possession of the suit property and plaintiffs had no concern therewith. The orders passed by the revenue Courts were legal and valid, and were rightly passed except a tubewell, watercourse and rasta shown in the land of defendants in Rect. No.82, Killa No.9/3 as per Naksha Be. Thus, they also moved a counter-claim, stating that rasta, tubewell and watercourse through Rect. No.82, Killa No.9/3 shown in Naksha Be through the land owned and possessed by defendants No.1 to 4 was in fact against the mode of partition and, therefore, the orders passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade Alewa, the Collector Sub Division, Jind and the Commissioner, Hisar, were wrong to that extent and were liable to be corrected.;