- (1.) DEFENDANTS are in appeal, against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and the learned first appellate court allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs, decreeing their suit in toto, for declaration and permanent injunction.
(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they were the owners in possession of the property in dispute fully described in the title of the plaint as they purchased the suit land from one Niranjan Singh through registered sale deed dated 24.1.1964 and they had enquired before purchasing the land that Niranjan Singh vendor was the owner of the suit land being an allottee of that property and he sold that land to the respondents. However, defendants put a notice in the village for auction of the suit land on the ground that the allotment in favour of Niranjan Singh, the previous owner was cancelled after the land was purchased by the plaintiffs -appellants from him. It is alleged that the cancellation of allotment of the previous owner had no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs, who were the bonafide purchasers of this suit land from the ostensible owner for valuable consideration.
(3.) THE respondents in their written statement admitted that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit land from Niranjan Singh. It was averred that Niranjan Singh was a bogus allottee and his allotment was cancelled and as such the appellants have no right to the suit property. The writ petition filed by Niranjan singh was also dismissed. Even the appellants filed an application before the Naib Tehsildar Sales for purchase of the cancellation area which was not allowed but in appeal the case was remanded and the same is pending before the Assistant Registrar -cum - Managing Officer. The respondents also resisted the suit on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 CPC and that the suit was bad for non -joinder of Niranjan Singh. On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: - 1. Whether the plaintiffs have purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 24.1.1964 from Niranjan Singh?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as prayed?OPP 4. Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have not served notice under Section 80 CPC?OPD 6. Whether suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties?OPD 7. Relief. To substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs proved their case partly. Accordingly, declining the relief of declaration, the suit was partly decreed for the relief of permanent injunction vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.1985. Dissatisfied, plaintiffs filed their first appeal which came to be allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.6.1986. Hence this appeal, at the hands of the defendants.;