Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decree, passed by both the courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and possession has been decreed.
(2.) IN this case, the dispute is about 82 kanals 1 marla of land situated in village Bahri, Tehsil and District Jind. With regard to this land and some other land, defendant No. 1 (appellant herein) filed Civil Suit No. 537 of 1971, only against the Gram Panchayat of the Village, for declaration to the effect that the suit land was Jumla Malkans land, which was partitioned, and he had become owner of the same. The said suit was decreed on 16.12.1971 on the admitted written statement filed by Telu Singh, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, who was none else, but the real brother of defendant No. 1. On the basis of the said decree, mutation No. 718 was sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1. Subsequently, on 25.2.1978, the plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) filed the instant suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all the right holders of the village under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, for recovery of possession of the suit land, by seeking declaration that the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1971 is null and void, collusive and ineffective against the rights of the proprietors of the suit land, who were not party to the suit. Defendant No. 1 contested the suit on the ground that the alleged Jumla Malkan and Deegar Haqdaran have no right, title or interest in the suit land, and he is owner in possession of the suit land since time immemorial. The decree dated 16.12.1971 was not collusive and the same is binding on the plaintiffs. The pleas of limitation, res judicata and suit being not properly valued for the purpose of court fee were also taken.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1977 passed by the court of Sh. V.K. Jain, the Sub Judge 1st Class, Kaithal in suit No. 537 is null and void to the extent of the land in dispute? OPP (2) Whether the mutation No. 719 of village Bahri attested on 8.4.72 is null and void and is not effective against the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land? OPP (3) Whether the decree and judgment dated 18.12.76 passed by Sh. M.K. Bansal, Sub Judge, 1st Class, Jind, in suit No. 163/1 is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff to the extent of the suit land? OPP (4) Whether the defendant No. 1 is the owner in possession of the suit land since the time immemorial? OPD (5) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPD (6) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (7) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD (8) Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res -judicata? OPD (9) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (10) Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness? OPD (11) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped and barred from filing the present suit by their acts and conduct? OPD (11 -A) Whether the defendant No. 1 has become the owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD (12) Relief.;