- (1.) Having been non-suited by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration was dismissed, plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of instant appeal.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate Court in paras 2 to 4 of the impugned judgment, are that the plaintiffs purchased some landed property measuring about 19 marlas vide three different registered sale deeds dated 25.11.1985, 24.7.1987 and 22.10.1990 and subsequently in the year 1990, all the plaintiffs constructed a residential house including latrines etc. and raised the boundary wall installed hand pump therein. A ration card was also issued in the name of the plaintiff No.1. Subsequently, in the month of September 2000, some persons including Bansu Ram, Gulzari Ram and Charan Dass without any cause or reason intended to interfere into peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, which led to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs on 23.9.2000 wherein the above persons contested the suit as defendants and ultimately vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2004, court of Sh. HS Gill, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and the appeal filed against the judgment and decree, was later on got dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat, defendant no.3 filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act, 1961 with regard to the property in question falsely alleging that the property in question comprised in Khasra Nos. 33, 34, 35 and in that petition, plaintiffs were impleaded as defendants No. 1 to 4. That petition was hotly contested and ultimately, the learned DD&PO reached to the conclusion that Gram Panchayat failed to prove its ownership over the disputed property and therefore, the respondents (including the present plaintiffs) cannot be ejected from the disputed property which was purchased by them. No appeal was filed by the Gram Panchayat against that order and the same has become absolute. But one way or the other, defendant No.3 succeeded and defendant No.2 issued warrant of possession by giving reference of order dated 15.2.2006 directing the SDM, Jalandhar-I to take possession from the defendants and the present plaintiffs when in fact, the petition of Gram Panchayat filed before the DDPO was dismissed. It was further averred that in case, defendants No. 2 and 3 were succeeded to execute the warrants of possession, the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss. Hence, the present suit.
(3.) Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statements separately.;