- (1.) This S.B. Civil second appeal has been filed by Phool Chand and Uttam Chand against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2011 passed by the learned Addl.District Judge, Srikaranpur , District Sriganganagar in civil regular appeal No.01/2010 by which the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Srikaranpur in civil suit No.37/2000 by which the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellants. The brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the plaintiff appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent-defendants before the Civil Judge ( Sr.Divn.) Srikaranpur, District Srigangangar stating that the appellants are the residents of Chak 60 F, which previously was under the control of the Gram Panchayat 2 F.F.A. The then Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat sold plot No. 70 to the father of the plaintiffs Shri Dona Ram for a sum of Rs.79/- vide sale letter dated 30.12.1977. Plot No.69 was sold to one Balveer Singh the possession of northern share measuring 44 x 100 ft. of plot No. 69 and 70 was given to Balveer Singh and possession of southern side measuring 44 x 100 ft. was given to Dona Ram father of plaintiff appellants and since then the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession over the said plot. It was averred that respondent No.1 tried to get forcible possession of the plot of the plaintiffs stating that the said plot was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat in the year 1986. The plaintiff appellants prayed in the suit that the respondent may be restrained from interfering in the possession by permanent injunction.
(2.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as 5 issues and after hearing the arguments of the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff appellants vide its judgment and decree dated 18.01.2010, against which an appeal was filed by the plaintiff appellants before the learned Addl.District Judge, Srikaranapur, District Srigianganagar, who dismissed the appeal vide its judgment datd 10.07.2011 and affirmed the judgment and decreed dated 18.01.2010. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the plaintiff appellants have preferred this second appeal. Counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below are per se illegal , arbitrary and contrary to law as well as facts. Counsel further contended that the trial court has committed grave illegality while deciding issue No. 1 and 2 jointly, whereas the learned trial court ought to have decided issue No.1 and 2 separately. The southern portion of plot No.69 and 70 was allotted by the Gram Panchayat in favour of the father of the plaintiff appellants and possession of the same was handed over to the plaintiff appellants and the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat in favour of respondent No.1 is void and against the right of the appellants. I have perused the judgment passed by the learned trial court as affirmed by the learned first appellate court and also perused the substantial question of law as proposed by the counsel for the appellant in the memo of appeal. The appellants have filed the suit only for permanent injunction against the respondents and no relief for the cancellation of the sale agreement executed in favour of the respondent No.1 by the Gram Panchayat has been sought in the plaint.
(3.) The main contention of the appellant is that issue No.1 and 2 jointly decided by the learned trial court as well as the learned appellate court is erroneous. Issue No.1 is regarding the possession over the suit property of Dona Ram as owner and issue No.2 is regarding the act of the respondent No.1 for forcibly entering into the suit property. In my view, the learned trial court and the first appellate court have committed no error in deciding both the issues jointly because while deciding both the issues that when a sale deed was executed by the Gram Panchayat in favour of respondent Kashmiri Lal and no relief has been sought for the cancellation of the above sale deed, the sale deed shall remain in force and so far as the sale deed shall remain in force the ownership of the plot shall vest in defendant No.1 and, therefore, the learned trial court rightly held that the plaintiff appellants are not entitled to get any relief for permanent injunction, without declaring the document creating ownership rights in favour of defendant No.1. Counsel for the appellants failed to satisfy that where without there being any prayer for cancellation of the sale deed the decree passed for permanent injunction will serve the purpose of the plaintiff appellants. Accordingly, issue No.1 and 2, jointly decided by the learned trial court, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. So far as issue No.3 and 4 are concerned, those were not pressed by the counsel for the defendants in the trial court. No substantial question as proposed by the learned counsel in the memo of appeal are involved in the present second appeal.;