Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is filed by defendant No. 5 against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court by which suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed and defendants No. 13 and 2 have been directed to incorporate the mutations in terms of the sale deeds Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 in the concerned record of rights. The plaintiffs filed suit for mandatory injunction alleging that the land comprised in killa No. 39/11, measuring 08 kanals 00 marla, situated in the revenue estate of village Asadpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat was earlier owned by the plaintiffs, Ishwar & Bhopal Singh, sons and Piari, widow of Chander. Defendants No. 4 to 6 sold the aforesaid land to defendant No. 3 for Rs. 4,500/ - vide sale deed No. 3547 dated 15.01.1975 (Ex. P2) and defendant No. 3 further sold the aforesaid land to the plaintiffs in equal shares for a sum of Rs. 4,500/ - vide sale deed No. 1025 dated 17.06.1976 (Ex. P1). The plaintiffs thus allegedly became owners in possession of the suit land and were entitled to get the same mutated in their favour in the revenue records.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that they had requested the defendants No. 1 and 2 many a times to enter and sanction mutation of the aforesaid land in their favour but to no avail and hence, the present suit for mandatory injunction has been filed. Defendants No. 5 and 6, namely, Bhopal Singh and Piari filed their written statement averring that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. On merits, it was averred that defendants No. 4 to 6 and plaintiffs were not the owners of the land comprised in killa No. 39/11(8 -0) rather the plaintiffs, defendants No. 4 to 6 along with other persons are co -sharers of the suit land and some other land and after the death of Ishwar, his legal heirs have stepped into his shoes and all such persons are in joint possession of the said land. It was also averred that defendants No. 4 to 6 did not sell the aforesaid killa number 39/11(8 -0) to Ram Singh S/o. Kundan on 15.01.1975 because they were not the owners of the said land and had no title to execute the sale deed and in case the aforesaid land has been sold by defendant No. 3 to the plaintiffs on 17.06.1976, the said sale deed is illegal as there is no sale deed dated 15.01.1975 in favour of defendant No. 3 alleged to have been executed in his favour by defendants No. 4 to 6 as they had neither received any sale consideration nor thumb marked the said document. It was also denied that the plaintiffs have any right to get the mutation sanctioned in their favour on the basis of sale deed dated 17.06.1976. Finally, it was averred that the sale deed dated 15.01.1975 (Ex. P2) in favour of defendant No. 3 and sale deed dated 17.06.1976 (Ex. P1) in favour of the plaintiffs are illegal, null and void and are not binding on the rights of defendants No. 4 to 6. In the counterclaim, they had prayed that both the sale deeds be declared null and void having not been signed or thumb marked by them.
(3.) THE plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement denying the assertions made therein and reiterated the stand taken by them in the plaint.;