Arun Palli, J. - (1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2006. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed on 23.10.2008. This is how, defendant is 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.) PLAINTIFF and defendant No. 2, had a common interest and the pedigree table drawn in the plaint reads as thus: - In short, in a suit filed by the plaintiff, he prayed for a declaration that he and defendant No. 2 i.e. Ved Parkash had become the owners of suit land, as described in Para 1 of the plaint by operation of Section 3 of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (for short '1952 Act'). A decree for injunction was also claimed restraining defendant No. 1, from causing any interference in his possession over the suit property and alienating the same in any manner. It was averred that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were in possession as tenants of a land comprised in Khewat No. 434, Khata No. 574, Rect No. 13, Killa No. 26 measuring 1 Kanal 12 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Jharsetli, District Faridabad. It was also averred that plaintiff and his forefathers had been in possession of the suit land for the last more than 100 years as tenants without any obstruction and intervention under defendant No. 1 on payment of land revenue. It was maintained that Banarsi Dass died issueless and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in the name of Shankar Lal son of Murli Dhar bearing mutation No. 1977 on 11.11.1965, as Ram Singh son of Murli Dhar had already passed away. Shankar Lal was succeeded to by the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, vide mutation No. 2621 sanctioned on 30.10.1976, as Brij Raj Singh, his son had also died in the lifetime of Shankar Lal. Thus, the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 were tenants under defendant No. 1. As defendant No. 1, attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land, a Civil Suit bearing No. 263 of 1990, titled Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana was filed against defendant No. 1. Though, defendant No. 1 admitted possession of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 over the suit property but disputed the existence of any relationship of a landlord and tenant between the parties. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.1994, by the then Senior Sub -Judge. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed. Proceedings initiated by defendant No. 1, against plaintiff and defendant No. 2, under Haryana Public Premises Act, 1972 (in short '1972 Act') culminated into an order of this Court dated 14.07.1999, and it was held that if the land that was subject matter of dispute in the said proceedings, was the same as in Civil Suit No. 263 of 1990, the proceedings under 1972 Act would be dropped. It was claimed that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had acquired occupancy rights and no rent was ever increased and they were never ejected. Thus, by virtue of Section 3 of 1952 Act, plaintiff and defendant No. 2 acquired title qua the suit land. Since, defendant No. 1 did not acknowledge the claim of plaintiff and defendant No. 2, thus, the suit.
(3.) IN defence, it was pleaded inter -alia that plaintiff and his forefathers have been in unauthorized possession of the suit land, that is owned by the defendant No. 1. The claim of the plaintiff that he and his predecessor -in -interest were in possession for the last over 100 years, was denied. Since, vide judgment and decree dated 05.08.1994 rendered by the trial Court and decree dated 07.05.1998, passed by the Appellate Court, liberty was granted to the State to dispossess the plaintiff, proceedings under 1972 Act were initiated. The claim of the plaintiff that he and defendant No. 2 had acquired titled qua the suit property being occupancy tenants was, however, denied.;