M. Jeyapaul, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff who was non suited by both the Courts below in the suit filed by him for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating this suit property has preferred the present appeal. Now his legal heirs have come on record to prosecute the appeal on his demise.
(2.) THE plaintiff has contended in the plaint that he was owner in possession of the suit land as recorded in Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari. On the basis of a fictitious decree the defendants started ascertaining themselves as the owners of the land and they also tried to alienate the suit property. Contending that the defendants have no right in the suit property, the suit has been filed for the reliefs as stated supra. The 1st defendant Gurcharan Singh, the son of the plaintiff, admitted the allegations made in the plaint by his father. He has contended that he has no right in the suit property. He was not aware of any decree passed by the Court against the plaintiff, he has pleaded.
(3.) THE 2nd and 3rd defendants who were the wife and son of Baltej Singh respectively have contended that the plaintiff Sher Singh suffered a decree in favour of his sons the 1st defendant herein and Baltej Singh, the husband and father of defendants 2 and 3 on 6.9.1983. After the demise of Baltej Singh the defendants 2 and 3 has become the owners of the land to an extent of 1/2 share. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. He was estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct, it was contended.;