GURBAKSH SINGH Vs. RAJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs - appellants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby by the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, alleging therein that the suit land measuring 7 Kanals 2 Marias was purchased by the plaintiffs in March, 1965, from, its previous owner Mast Ram vide agreement to sell dated 27.3.1965 and sale deed dated 18.5.1965 was got executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Smt Nasib Kaur who was the real sister of the plaintiffs and mother of defendant No.1. It was alleged that even though the sale deed was executed in favour of the Smt. Nasib Kaur wua the suit land, yet the plaintiffs remained in actual physical possession over the suit property which was purchased by them in the name of Smt Nasib Kaur. It was alleged that rn the year 1975, Smt Nasib Kaur was allotted 18 Marias of land by the State of Himachal Pradesh under the H.P. Village Commons lands (Vesting & Utilization) Act and the rules framed there under the Smt Nasib Kaur had put the plaintiffs in possession of the same by admitting the plaintiffs to be exclusive owner in possession of the same and she had been admitting the right title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land. It was alleged that the plaintiffs constructed industrial shed on a part of the suit land by the name M/S Nasib Flour Mill. It was alleged that defendant No.1 in connivance with the revenue staff got the suit property sanctioned in her name and was threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. It was alleged that during the pendency of the suit defendant No 1 had sold land measuring 15 Marias in favour of defendants No.5 and 6. It was alleged that the said sale deed was illegal and void.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement alleging therein that Smt Nasib Kaur was owner in possession of the suit land and after hear death, defendant No.1 became the owner in possession of the suit land and she sold a part of it in favour of defendants No.5 and 6 and the sale was legal and valid. It was denied that Smt Nasib Kaur admitted the plaintiffs to be the owners of the land measuring 18 Marias which was sanctioned by the Government in favour of Smt Nasib Kaur. It was also denied that the plaintiffs set up industrial unit over a part of the suit land or that Smt Nasib Kaur or defendant No.1 had ever admitted the plaintiffs to be the owners in possession of the suit property. By way of counter claim it was pleaded that the plaintiffs be restrained from dispossessing the defendants and in case, the plaintiffs succeed in dispossessing the defendants from the suit land, a decree for mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the defendants.