- (1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved of the order dated 11.02.2014 vide which their application under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC pleading for stay of the proceedings in execution was declined. The facts may be noticed in brief.
(2.) THE respondent Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Guru Daronacharya Mandir, Bhim Nagar, Gurgaon which is a registered Society filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession alleging that the predecessor -in -interest of the present petitioners (arrayed as defendants in the suit) were unauthorized occupants thereof on the basis of collusive decree suffered in their favour in the year 1994. It was pleaded that the suit property fell within the municipal limits of Gurgaon and decree dated 04.01.1994 in Civil Suit No. 481 of 1994 passed in favour of defendant No. 1 - Prabhu Dayal was illegal, null and void. As a consequential relief, they sought a restraint upon the defendants from raising further construction in the suit property and from alienating it. They also pleaded for possession. The property was described both on the strength of a site plan and revenue record and was stated to be a part and parcel of Khasra No. 1318 and 1319 in village Gurgaon. It was pleaded that initially this area which fell in the village was now within the municipal limits of Gurgaon and part of Bhim Nagar and a temple with ancient idols existed there. It was also stated that there was a Dharamshala, a Pond, a School, a Piao and some shops.
(3.) THE petitioners who contested the suit as defendants stated that Moti Ram son of Bihari Lal, one of the defendants was in possession of the property for the last 30 years and had, thus, acquired ownership on the basis of adverse possession. After the collusive decree of 1994 suffered by Moti Ram in favour of defendant No. 1 i.e. Prabhu Dayal, he proclaimed himself as the owner. It was denied that Sanatan Dharam Sabha was a registered body, although the existence of temple was admitted. It was denied by the petitioners that a temple existed in Khasra No. 1318 and 1319 and similarly existence of Dharamshala on the suit property was also denied but it was admitted that a School was being run by one Sh. Ishwar Chand Jhamb, who had filed the civil suit and that the income derived from the monthly rent of the shop was being used by him for his own benefit. Similarly the allegations of more area and construction as alleged in the plaint were also denied. It was reasserted that Moti Ram was continuously in possession for the last 30 years and upon becoming owner by adverse possession, a collusive decree was suffered in favour of defendant No. 1 -Prabhu Dayal. The decree of 1994 was pleaded to be valid and it was also stated that the suit is barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 and Section 11 CPC. The counter claim was also filed seeking injunction to restrain the plaintiffs in the suit from demolishing the property. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: - "1. Whether the plaintiff is registered with Registrar of Societies, Haryana as alleged? OPP 2. Whether there exist, Guru Dronacharya Temple, pond and Dharamshala in Khasra No. 1318, 1319 as alleged? OPP 3. Whether defendant No. 2 had encroached upon part of the suit property shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint as alleged? OPP 4. Whether defendants have no right, title in the suit property and have raised unauthorized construction as alleged? OPP 5. Whether the judgment and decree dated 4.1.94 passed in favour of defendant No. 1 by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon are illegal, void, nonest and not binding on plaintiff as alleged?OPP 6. Whether suit has not been filed through authorized person and if so to what effect?OPP 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus -standi and no cause of action to file the present suit?OPP 8. Whether plaintiff is estopped by its own act, admission, conduct, acquiescence from filing the present suit as alleged? IPD 9. Whether defendant No. 1 has become owner of the suit property vide civil court decree and by adverse possession also as alleged?OPD 10. Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder and mis joinder of necessary party as alleged?OPD 11. Whether the suit is not within limitation?OPD 12. Whether suit is not properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as alleged?OPD 13. Relief.";