Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE second appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1. On 24.12.1984, plaintiffs Balihar Singh and Balkar Singh (minor) through his brother Balihar Singh, both sons of Santokh Singh son of Bhagat Singh (defendant No. l) filed a suit seeking a decree for joint possession of the land falling in two villages Ghataron and Hansaron, Tehsil Nawanshahar, District Jalandhar, mentioned in die head note of the plaint, alleging that the parties in the suit are governed by Hindu Law, plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 8 constitute a Joint Hindu family and are coparceners and the land being ancestral, they have a right in the property by birth. It was further alleged that defendants No. 5 and 9 who claimed themselves to be vendees of the land of Bhagat Singh (defendant No. l) have no right as Bhagat Singh had no legal necessity to alienate the coparcenary property.
(2.) IN the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, it was, inter alia , alleged that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, the suit is barred by the principles of res -judicata as the earlier suit filed by the father of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Court of Sub Judge, Nawanshahar, the suit property is neither Joint Family property nor coparcenary property and is rather self -acquired property by defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs filed replication denying the averments in the written statement and re -iterated the stand taken in the plaint.
(3.) ON the pleadings of die parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 8 constituted joint Hindu family? OPP 2. Whether the suit property is joint Hindu family coparcenary property? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res -judicata? OPD 5.WHETHER the pedigree table propounded in para No. 1 of the plaint is incorrect? OPD Relief.;