VINEY MITTAL,J - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. R.S.A. No. 46 of 1984 and R.S.A. No. 47 of 1984 as similar facts and common questions of law are involved in the both the cases. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from R.S.A. No. 46 of 1984.
(2.) THE defendants having lost concurrently, before the two courts below, have chosen to file the present Regular Second Appeal. The plaintiff Rajinder filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit land and from dispossessing him from the suit land without due process of law. It was pleaded by him that land measuring 28 kanals 5 marlas is in his possession for the last more than seven years, prior to the filing of the suit and that his possession has been peaceful. It was claimed that the defendants were trying to interfere in his possession without any justification and along with other owners, were trying to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land. List of other joint owners was also filed in the schedule and suit was filed against all the other owners in a representative capacity. The plaintiff claimed that he could not be dispossessed from the suit land without any due process of law. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was claimed by them that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and thus, the suit was not maintainable. It was further claimed by the defendants that there are three parties in the village - Killa No. 9/14 is in possession of Ram Jiwan and Hazari of Patti Ganga Ram, Killa Nos. 5/21, 6/25 and 30/11 was in possession of Jyoti Sarup of Har Narain Patti and Killa Nos. 6/21 and 5/21 were lying Banjar and Killa No. 30/1 has not been cultivated for the last 5/6 years. Accordingly, they claimed that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. The learned trial court, on the basis of evidence brought on record by the parties, held that the plaintiff had been able to prove his exclusive possession over the suit land. However, since the plaintiff had admitted that defendants and other owners of the village were owners of the suit land, therefore, the suit was decreed to the extent that plaintiff be not dispossessed of the suit land except in due process of law. The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned first appellate court re-appraised the evidence and came to the similar conclusion as had been arrived at by the learned trial court. Consequently, the appeal of the defendants was also dismissed. The learned first appellate court further observed that the proper remedy of the proprietors of the village was to sue for partition. The defendants have now chosen to file the present Regular Second Appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and with his assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel that the suit filed by the plaintiff could not have been decreed since the defendants have been admittedly the proprietors of the village and the plaintiff had admitted the aforesaid fact before the trial court. I have considered the aforesaid contention of learned counsel but find myself unable to agree with the same. Both the courts have found it as a fact that the plaintiff was recorded to be in possession of the suit property. Although it has been noticed that defendants and other owners were proprietors of the village but it has been held that they could seek the possession of the suit property after seeking partition and after following due process of law. Once the plaintiff was shown to be in peaceful possession of the suit property, then, he could not be dispossessed from the same by using force. The possession of the plaintiff is even proved from the revenue record produced on the record. It has also been recorded in the revenue record that even the plaintiff was one of the joint owners of the suit land, being one of the proprietors. No other point has been urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;