RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. - (1.) PRESENT regular second appeal at the hands of the plaintiffs, has been filed against the impugned judgment of reversal dated 23.2.1985, whereby the first appeal of the defendant was allowed, dismissing the suit for declaration of the plaintiffs -appellants. Facts first.
(2.) ONE Gujar Mal was the original owner. Smt. Gita Devi and others -plaintiffs claimed themselves to be successors -in -interest of late Sh. Gujar Mal. Suit land was mutated in favour of defendant - Notified Area Committee, Mahendergarh ('NAC' for short). It was so recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1956 -57 Ex.P9. The suit land was part of Shamlat Khewat of the proprietors. It was further pleaded case of the plaintiffs that suit land does not fall within the definition of of Shamlat Deh, as per the provisions of Section 2 (g) (5) (viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 ('VCL Act' for short). Suit land was assessed to land revenue and the plaintiffs were continuing in their cultivating possession as per their share. Name of the defendant -NAC in the column of ownership was liable to be corrected. It was also pleaded that plaintiff No.9 was entitled to get a mutation entered in his name, with respect to the land measuring 7 kanals 10 marlas out of the suit land, on the basis of sale deed No. 926 dated 18.2.1977, executed by plaintiffs No. 1 and 2. Based on the abovesaid pleadings, a decree of declaration was sought. Having been served in the suit, defendant appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit. It was stated that suit land was part of Shamlat Khewat and ownership of the suit land was mutated in favour of the defendant in the year 1956. Thereafter, defendant has been paying land revenue and the plaintiffs have no concern with the suit land. The suit land was under the ownership of the defendant and possession of the plaintiffs was illegal. It was also pleaded that suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) ON completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues: - 1. "Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are owners in possession of the disputed suit land?OPP 2. Whether the sale deed effected by Asarfi and Gita Devi is not binding upon the plaintiffs and other defendants on the ground alleged in para No.3 of the civil suit No. 127 of 1977?OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD. 4. Relief." ;