A. S. Godara, J. - (1.) Both these Revision Petitions purporting to have been filed under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") arise out of impugned orders dated 4-11-96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Ladanu in Civil Suit No. 5/85 pending between the same parties and accordingly, both these petitions, being convenient, are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) For the disposal of the controversies arising out of these petitions, the facts giving rise to them are that Moolchand (deceased) who was the original plaintiff in the suit, instituted this suit by way of presentment of a plaint on 19-2-85 thereby impleading non petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 as defendants seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. It was pleaded that the suit property which is marked and shown by the letters ABCD in the enclosed site-map, situated in Jaswantgarh, was of joint ownership of Moolchand and defendant No. 14 Govindram. It was also alleged that two old constructed 'kothas' and a 'kutchi' kitchen were existing on the suit premises. It was occupied by their mother. The defendant No. 4, who is brother of Moolchand (deceased) is residing at Village Kudali while Moolchand was carrying on his business at Sujangarh. The defendant No. 1 with the help and connivance of defendant No. 2 Bhanwar Lal is bent upon taking forcible possession of the disputed property and in furtherance of it, they had also removed a temple existing on the disputed property on 5-10-84 resulting in lodging of an FIR with the Police Station, Jaswantgarh. Therefore, it was pleaded and prayed that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had no legal right or claim over the disputed property and since they were bent upon to forcibly take possession of the disputed property thereby ousting the possession and defeating the title, claim and interest of the plaintiff and his brother defendant No. 4 and, therefore, a decree of permanent injunction against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was sought. This was resisted by defendant Ram Niwas who contested all these allegations of the plaintiff submitting that the plaintiff Mool Chand was a notorious criminal and was involved in nefarious activities of usurping property of other persons who was also involved in many criminal cases pending in different Courts. It was denied that the suit property marked by ABCD and claimed to be of the ownership of the plaintiff Moolchand and defendant-Govindram was of their ownership and they were also possessed of the same.
(3.) On the other hand, inter alia, it was pleaded that the southern half portion of this property was in exclusive possession of Bherubux and on his death, in the possession of defendant No. 1 Ram Niwas and his brother while the alleged constructions were existing on the northern half portion which belongs to Moolchand and his brother Govindram wherein their mother was residing. So, the case of the defendants throughout has been that the disputed plot was not in the possession, use and occupation of the plaintiff Moolchand as well as Govindram nor did they have any right, title or interest in the same at the time of institution of the suit. Though the plaintiff Moolchand (deceased) and Govind Ram did not unfold the true state of affairs in their original pleadings but the defendant Ram Niwas clearly pleaded that his father Bherbux instituted a money suit No. 55/56 in the Court of Munsif. Deedwana against Moolchand and obtained a decree against the plaintiff and, resultantly, the southern half portion of the suit property was put to Court auction which was purchased by Bherubux on 20-10-60 and, accordingly, a Sale Certificate was issued by the Court in respect of the southern half portion of the suit property in favour of Bherubux who was declared a purchaser of this portion of the property and since then Bherubux, and on his death, his heirs including the defendant No. 1 Ram Niwas, are in exclusive possession, use and occupation of this portion of the plot and that there never existed any construction over this southern portion of the land and that the site-plan was not correctly prepared and the constructions were falsely exhibited on the middle part of the suit property whereas it existed on the northern half portion of the disputed property. It was also denied that there existed no temple at the time of auction of the southern portion of the plot in execution of the decree obtained by Bherubux or thereafter.;