- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the plaintiff, after her suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondentsdefendants was initially decreed in her favour by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, but the judgment and decree of that Court was reversed in a first appeal filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents herein (defendants No.1 and 4), by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012.
(2.) The facts leading up to the institution of the suit, are that the 2nd defendant, i.e. the Kanungo, Circle Dehlon, District Ludhiana (respondent No.3 herein), issued an order dated 02.09.1998, stating therein that on account of some loan amount due and recoverable from Harchand Singh, the late husband of the plaintiff, a recovery of Rs.35,950/- was to be made from the plaintiff, pursuant to which her landed property would be put up on auction on 09.09.1998, in pursuance to an order issued by the Assistant Collector (Assistant Registrar) Cooperative Societies, Jagraon (defendant no.1-respondent no.2), if the loan amount was not deposited by her (plaintiff) by that date.
(3.) As per the plaintiff, her late husband, Harchand Singh, had availed of a loan from the Mirpur Hans Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited, in the year 1972-73, which he had actually repaid during his life time and a certificate dated 01.04.1974 was issued to him saying that he had cleared the said loan. Harchand Singh is stated to have died in 1991, leaving no landed property in his name and as such, no property was inherited by the plaintiff or his other LRs, from him. It was contended in the plaint that the suit property, i.e. land falling in various khasra numbers fully described in the plaint, was the selfpurchased property of the plaintiff, in her own name, from money given to her by her parents, vide different sale deeds, and that mutations in that respect duly stood entered in her favour. As such, it was contended that firstly, Harchand Singh was not liable to pay any loan, it already having been paid, and in any case, the said property could not be subject matter of recovery of the loan taken by Harchand Singh, the plaintiff not being either the borrower or the guarantor for the said loan. Still further, it was stated that the loan dated back to more than 25 years and even during the life time of Harchand Singh, no proceedings were initiated by the Society or any of the other defendants, to recover it. Consequently, a decree of permanent injunction was prayed for by the plaintiff, restraining the respondents from illegally and forcibly attaching, or selling in auction, her property.;