Surinder Gupta, J. - (1.) Joint land of parties was finally partitioned by Revenue Authorities vide order dated 29.01.1974 (Ex. P-1). Appeal against order of partition filed by Karam Singh, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs was dismissed by Collector, Phagwara vide order dated 08.10.1974 (Ex. P-19). Plaintiffs, who are sons and daughters of Karam Singh filed present suit on 29.08.1980 seeking declaration and relief of injunction as follows:- (i) Plaintiffs and defendants no. 21 to 32 are the owners in possession of land of khata no. 195, khatauni no. 275 to 334, measuring 314 kanals 5 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and of khasra no. 56 (8-0) khata no. 190/330 situated in village Chachoki, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala; (ii) Defendants no. 1 to 20 have got no right, title and interest in the land and the partition proceedings taken out by these defendants vide files nos. 2/T and 1/T of 02.03.1972, are illegal, null and void and not binding on the right of plaintiffs and defendants no. 21 to 32; (iii) Allotment of specific khasra no. 42 (5-1), 70 (0-11), 41/2 (3-17) total measuring 9 kanals 9 marlas and a part of land bearing khasra no. 56 (8-0) i.e. 2 kanals 4 marlas to the defendants or either of them in the partition proceedings, is illegal, void, ineffective qua the right of plaintiffs; (iv) For permanent injunction against defendants no. 1 to 20, restraining them from executing the order passed by revenue authorities in partition proceeding and dispossessing plaintiffs from above referred land or to get the mutation sanctioned in their favour.
(2.) Admittedly, Fateh Singh was common ancestor of parties, who had two sons, namely, Sunder Singh and Jaimal Singh. Plaintiffs and defendants no. 21 to 29 are successors-in-interest of Jaimal Singh and defendants no. 1 to 20 are heirs of Sunder Singh. Shares of Jaimal Singh and Sunder Singh in the suit land are not in dispute.
(3.) Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants no. 1 to 20 and their predecessors-in-interest effected so many transfers of joint khata, which exceeded their shares. The civil suit was filed by one of their transferees wherein it was held that defendants no. 1 to 20 have sold the land more than their share. Those findings have become conclusive. After consolidation, khata of parties was kept joint without taking note of individual transfers made by co-sharers. The land acquired by Jaimal Singh in his individual capacity was also put in joint hotch-potch. Plaintiffs and defendants no. 21 to 32 are in exclusive possession of suit land. However, taking undue benefit of the entries in the revenue record defendants no. 1 to 20 filed partition proceedings where the question of title was raised but the revenue authorities without taking care of this fact ordered final partition of the joint property.;