- (1.) For the reasons stated in the application, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. Plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court who have lost concurrently before the two Courts below. They filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction on May 18, 1992 claiming that they are joint owners in possession of land measuring 95 kanal 12 marlas being 6/7th shares of the total land and that, defendant No.1 is the joint owner in possession of 15 kanal 10 marlas being 1/7th share of the total. It was claimed that defendant No.1 could not deny the title of the plaintiffs in the suit land. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claimed joint possession of the total land.
(2.) The plaintiffs alleged that they had inherited the suit land from Kishan Singh. At no point of time, the plaintiff had ever sold any land out of Khasra No.1504 but revenue record reflected some sales. The plaintiffs claimed that the said entries in the revenue record were illegal, bad and not binding upon their rights. The plaintiffs further claimed that predecessor of defendant Nos.12 to 18 and defendant No.1 had sold more than their share in the joint holding and the said sales were liable to be set aside. It was pleaded that father of the plaintiffs namely Gurditta Ram and his wife were illiterate and defendant No.1, Gurdas Ram, used to manage the affairs of Gurditta Ram. Consequently, he managed the revenue entries in his favour. It was further claimed that Gurditta Ram had mortgaged some land but later on had redeemed the same.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant No.1 filed written statement claiming that he was owner of the property in question. All the pleas taken by the plaintiffs were denied. A separate written statement was filed by defendant Nos.2 to 6 and defendant Nos.8 to 10. The aforesaid defendants also pleaded that the plaintiffs had no concern with the suit land and that, the sale deeds in their favour were legal and valid.;