- (1.) APPELLANTS along with others filed the instant suit seeking the following relief: "That a decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, fully detailed and described in Schedule 'A' attached with the plaint known as Chaksalar Pur, which was previously in the State of Uttar Pradesh and has come to the territory in the State of Haryana, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad by virtue of the Act No.31 of 1979, mentioned above with the directions of the State of Haryana, defendant for incorporating the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs qua the suit land in the revenue records of the State of Haryana of Village Chaksalarpur with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and legal possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants with cost."
(2.) THE suit was decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26.12.2006 in the following manner: "It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and the same is hereby decreed with no order as to costs to the effect that plaintiffs or their predecessors -in -interest are owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 357 Bighas 5 Biswas comprising of plot No.1/1 (60 -0 -0), 1/2 (5 -0 -0), 1/3 (10 -14 -0), 3/1 (6 -0 -0), 3/2 (5 -0 -0), 3/3 (2 - 0 -0), 3/4 (0 -10 -0), 3/5 (1 -10 -0), 4 (5 -0 -0), 5/1 (2 -0 -0), 5/2 (4 -0 -0), 5/3 (10 -8 -0), 6/7 (7 -10 -0), 7/1 (8 -0 -0), 7/2 (3 -17 - 0), 8/1 (6 -0 -0), 8/2 (25 -0 -0), 8/3 (16 -10 -0), 9/1 (26 -15 -0), 9/2 (10 -0 -0), 9/3 (9 -0 -0), 9/4 (6 -7 -0), 9/5 (7 -8 -0), 10/1 (15 - 0 -1), 10/2 (8 -0 -0), 10/3 (1 -10 -0), 10/4 (1 -0 -0), 11/1 (4 -12 - 0), 11/2 (4 -5 -0), 11/3 (2 -0 -0), 11/4 (20 -0 -0), 12/1 (2 -5 -0), 12/2 (2 -0 -0), 12/3 (6 -0 -0), 12/4 (5 -0 -0), 13/1 (3 -0 -0), 13/2 (4 -0 -0), 13/3 (3 -0 -0), 13/4 (1 -0 -3), 14/5 (5 -0 -0), 14/7 (10 - 0 -0), 14/8 (2 -0 -0), 14/9 (4 -0 -1), 14/10 (7 -7 -4), plot No.44, situated within the revenue estate of Village Chak Salarpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad (previously situated in Chak Salarpur, Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad (U.P.) is required to be incorporated in the revenue records in the names of plaintiffs and their possession is also not required to be disturbed except in due course of law."
(3.) HOWEVER , the appeal filed on behalf of the Union of India against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Fridabad vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012 and consequently, suit of the plaintiffappellants was ordered to be dismissed with costs reversing the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the appellants filed the instant appeal. It is a matter of record that along with this appeal, appellants had also moved an application i.e. CM No.347 -C of 2013 seeking injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession of the appellants in the suit land or dispossessing them from the suit land. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 15.01.2013. The said order reads thus: "A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs with the prayer that they being owners in possession of the suit land as described in Schedule -A annexed with the plaint in village Chaksalarpur which was previously in State of Uttar Pradesh and was now in the territory of State of Haryana by virtue of a statutory enactment, defendants be directed to incorporate ownership and possession of the plaintiffs qua the suit land in the revenue estate of village Chaksalarpur. Consequential relief of permanent in junction was sought to restrain the defendants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Suit was decreed by the trial court. Two separate appeals were preferred by Union of India and State of Haryana. On the same set of evidence, the appellate court came to a different conclusion and reversed the judgment of the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants have submitted that following substantial questions of law are involved for consideration in this case: - (i) Whether inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration by the lower appellate court? (ii) Whether judgment of lower appellate court is based on mis -appreciation of evidence and non -consideration of relevant exhibited documents on record? (iii) Whether in view of the statutory enactment i.e. Alteration of Boundaries Act, 1979, plaintiffs were entitled to the relief prayed for? (iv) Whether it is obligatory on the part of State of Haryana in view of the evidence brought on record to make relevant entries in the revenue record to show that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land situated in village Chaksalarpur? Heard. Admitted. Notice re: stay for 14.2.2013.";