- (1.) This order will dispose of the application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC praying for stay of the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.5.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa during the pendency of the appeal.
(2.) The respondents are the LRs of Ramjas, who filed the suit against the defendant-appellant for declaration to the effect that the defendant Shivala Vakya Gram Rania Bahatmam Ganesh Gir Chela Puran Gir is not the owner of land measuring 87 Kanals 7 Marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint and that mutation No.3614 sanctioned on 8.3.1967 on the basis of decree dated 29.10.1964 passed by Shri G.D. Hans, the then Sub Judge Second Class, Sirsa in Civil Suit No.817 of 1963 and the subsequent revenue records i.e. Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawri showing the defendant Shivala Vakya Gram Rania Bahatmam Ganesh Gir Chela Puran Gir to be the owner are wrong against law, against facts, without authority, without jurisdiction, misrepresentation, concealment of facts and the same are ineffective and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not bound by the same and the same are liable to be set aside and struck down. A further declaration was sought to the effect that the defendant Shivala Vakya Gram Rania as owner has no right to take or initiate any proceedings/actions against the plaintiff who is in possession of the aforesaid suit land as Gair Maurusi. A further consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any manner was also prayed for.
(3.) The learned Sub Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa vide her judgment and decree dated 29.7.2003 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide his judgment and decree dated 16.5.2007 accepted the appeal of the plaintiff and the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2003 of the learned trial Court was set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. A decree for declaration was passed to the effect that defendant is a Pattedar Duami over the land in dispute and the defendant was so declared in the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1964 but in the subsequent entries in the revenue record, the defendant was wrongly entered as owner of the land in dispute. It was further declared that the plaintiff was tenant under the defendant and he cannot be evicted from the land in dispute except in due course of law. The said judgment and decree dated 16.5.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa is assailed in the present appeal which has been admitted on 30.7.2007.;