- (1.) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants for permanent injunction.
(2.) The plaintiff-appellants had filed a suit on the plea that they and defendant No. 3 were tenants in possession of land measuring 19 kanals 19 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari, under defendant No. 1. It was claimed that Budh Ram, predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 were in possession of the suit land as tenant and after his death tenancy rights were inherited by the defendants from Budh Ram and now the plaintiffs are tenants in the land in suit. It was also claimed that earlier Ram Chander son of Jai Gopal had become owner of the suit land by way of operation of provisions of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. Budh Ram was inducted as a tenant by Lala Ram Chander. Subsequently, a trust-deed was executed on 12.9.1955 by Ram Chander creating a trust of Mandir Shri Shivji Maharaj Kagjiwalan. Besides Ram Chander, there were other co-trustees. It was also claimed that the management of the Trust was entrusted to defendant No. 1 i.e. temple Shri Shivji Maharaj and other lands. It was further the case of the plaintiff-appellants that thereafter Saini Sabha interfered in the peaceful possession of plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 and suit was filed on 2.9.19980 in the civil Court at Rewari titled as Lok Ram v. Ram Autar and others for declaration as well as for permanent injunction challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.12.1975 which was passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rewari and affirmed by the Collector, Narnaul and Commissioner, Hisar Division. The suit as well as the appeal was dismissed and Regular Second Appeal was pending before the High Court against the said judgments and decrees. It was also claimed that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had been admitting the possession of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3. It was also claimed that Saini Sabha through its President entered into a compromise on 25th October, 1993 which entitled the plaintiff-appellants to retain the possession of 1500 sq. yards of land and the possession of the remaining land was taken from the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3. It was also claimed that Saini Sabha paid a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- (Rs. two lacs twenty thousands) in lieu of relinquishment of land of khasra No. 35 except 1500 sq. yards of land in favour of Saini Sabha. The document was to be registered qua the land measuring 1500 sq. yards so as to effect the sale in favour of the plaintiff- appellants and defendant No. 3. It was further claimed that possession of land measuring 155 sq. yards was to be given to Saini Sabha and the Saini Sabha would pay the amount in three equal instalments. The first instalment was payable on 31st January, 1994 and last instalment on 31st March, 1994. The said amount was to be paid in lieu of relinquishment of the possession and tenancy rights in respect of the suit land comprised in kahrasa No. 35 except to the extent of 1500 sq. yards. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that the said compromise was approved in the General Meeting of the Saini Sabha which was held on 25th December, 1993. The meeting was convened under the Presidentship of Shri Manohar Lal Saini in which a resolution approving the compromise was passed. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were said to have signed the resolution deed. It was also claimed that in pursuance to the said compromise, the plaintiffs delivered possession of the land except 1500 sq. yards to defendant No. 2-Saini Sabha and area of 1500 sq. yards was retained by the plaintiffs. It was further claimed that the defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to comply with the said compromise and they failed to make the payment of Rs. 2,20,000/- as agreed to by defendant No. 2. It was also claimed that by raising a wall, the defendantrespondents interfered not in the land delivered by the plaintiffs but also in the peaceful possession of the remaining land of 1500 sq. yards of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3. It was also pleaded that threat of forcible possession was given by the defendants. It was also claimed that defendant-respondents were asked to remove the construction, but they failed to do so. Therefore, the suit was filed.
(3.) The suit was contested by taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, affixation of less court-fee, res judicata and limitation. It was further claimed that the suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC and further the suit was barred under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;