- (1.) Since these two second appeals are directed against common judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and have been listed together for hearing, the same are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) Regular second appeal No.1855 of 1987 by defendants no.1 to 4 and regular second appeal No.1856 of 1987 by defendants no.1 to 5 are directed against two separate judgments and decrees dated 28.05.1985 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Sultanpur Lodhi whereby two separate suits for declaration filed by respondents-plaintiffs have been decreed and against the judgment and decree dated 09.04.1986 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala whereby two separate appeals filed by appellants have been dismissed vide common judgment. For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to parties is being made as per their status in civil suit.
(3.) The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that land in dispute in both the cases was Muslim Evacuee Property and it was sold in a restricted auction by Tehsildar (Sales) on 23.12.1964 to defendant- Parkash and the land was mutated in his favour. Said Parkash sold the land in dispute to Sardul Singh, who also further sold it to Smt. Gurbax Kaur. The plaintiffs of both the cases purchased the suit land from said Gurbax Kaur. It was further pleaded that vide orders dated 19.12.1978 and 16.01.1979, sale of the land in favour of defendant-Parkash had been cancelled by the Chief Sales Commissioner and suit land was ordered to be auctioned and some portion of it had even been auctioned on 09.02.1993. In both the suits, the plaintiffs claimed declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs, being bona fide purchasers, are owners of the land in dispute and order of Chief Sales Commissioner, Chandigarh cancelling the sale dated 23.12.1964, which had been made in favour of defendant-Parkash, is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and auction held on 09.02.1983 was arbitrary, illegal. The plaintiffs further prayed for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from re-auctioning the land in dispute on 25.02.1983 and interfering in the plaintiffs' possession over the land in dispute. Hence, suits were filed.;