- (1.) The appellant herein was plaintiff before the Court of first instance i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ludhiana who filed suit for possession in respect of land measuring 8 kanals comprised in khasra No.136//17/1/2, 23/3, 24/2/1, 139//3/2/1, 4/1, 254/2, 311 khewat No.63, khatauni No.63. The said suit has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2012. As against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of first instance, first appeal filed before learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana has also been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.04.2014 thereby affirming the judgment of the court of first instance. For convenience sake, hereinafter, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the plaint.
(2.) The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. In brief, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the effect that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession and injunction with the averments that his father-Prithvi Singh was owner of land measuring 8 kanals, situated within the revenue estate of village Jamalpur Awana, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, as fully mentioned in head-note of plaint. During his life-time, he executed a registered will dated 31.07.1968 in favour of the plaintiff and his mother-Gurnam Kaur and after death of Prithvi Singh @ Pirthi Singh, the plaintiff and his mother became owners of the suit property. Smt. Gurnam Kaur expired on 17.01.2009 and during her life-time, she also executed a legal and valid Will dated 28.02.2008 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have no right in the suit property but have illegally encroached upon it without consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested them to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property to him, but to no avail. Hence, suit was filed. Upon notice, the defendants resisted the suit and filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the suit property still stood in the name of Prithvi Singh in the revenue record. The defendants have never encroached upon any part of the suit land. Other averments in plaint were denied and dismissal of suit was prayed for.
(3.) On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land as prayed for OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving the possession of the suit property to any other person except the plaintiff OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property or raising any construction over the suit land as prayed for OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit OPD 6. Relief.";