Amit Rawal, J. - (1.) This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA No. 1670 of 2014 titled as "Piara v. Kelo Devi and others " and RSA No. 1671 of 2014 titled as "Piara v. Kelo Devi and others" .
(2.) The appellant(s)-defendant No.10 is aggrieved of the concurrent findings of fact, whereby the suit seeking the following relief has been decreed:- "The same is hereby partly decreed with costs. To the cost that the entries in column no.5 of the Jamabandi for the year 1996- 97 and 2001-02. Showing the possession of the defendants nos.10 and 11 are illegal, null, void, ab-initio. The plaintiff is proved to be in possession of the suit land and the defendants are restrained from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff, except in due course of law."
(3.) Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant No.10 submits that the suit for declaration qua permanent injunction was not maintainable, for, the property in the name of Shamlat Jumla Chamaran (Saroi Gotra) of Shamlat Jumla Chamaran Darwaja Siwan is belonging to the proprietor and in order to show the possession, umpteen number of documents i.e. Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-44 have been placed on record. The respondent(s)-plaintiff(s) are not in possession, but under the garb of the suit, they are claiming the possession as no relief of possession was sought. The alleged story coined in the plaint had not been supported by any documentary evidence. Both the Courts below have, thus, committed illegality and perversity in partly decreeing the suit. In fact, the respondent No.1-plaintiff has no concern with the land, in dispute. The evidence qua identity and descriptions of the property is lacking as it has been proved on record through cross-examination, much less, no document of title with regard to the land, in question, have been placed on record and thus, gift deed allegedly executed by the husband in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff would be meaningless. Even the execution of the gift deed has also been proved on record thus, urges this Court to formulate the substantial questions of law as carved out in the memorandum of appeal.;