BHAG SINGH Vs. BASANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applications seeking substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondent nos.1, 2 and 5 are allowed, subject to all just exception after condoning the delay and setting aside abatement in filing the substitution applications.

(2.) The present Appeal arises out of a dispute relating to the title and possession of agricultural land measuring 4 Kanals 18 Marlas, situated within the revenue estate of Muktsar, Punjab. The competing claims of the parties trace their origin to a registered sale deed dtd. 13/5/1965, on the one hand, and an alleged prior dedication of the suit property in favour of Dera Bhai Mastan Singh for Dharam-Arth (religious and charitable purposes), on the other. The controversy, which commenced with the institution of a civil suit in the year 1981, has traversed three stages of judicial scrutiny and culminated in the present Appeal questioning the correctness of the judgment dtd. 22/3/2011 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No. 593/1985.

(3.) The original plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 183-A of 1981 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Muktsar [Hereinafter referred as 'Trial Court'], seeking a declaration that they were owners in possession of land measuring 4 Kanals 18 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 578, Khatauni No. 871, Rectangle No. 365, Killa Nos. 3/3 and 4/1, together with a consequential decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. Their claim of title was founded upon a registered sale deed dtd. 13/5/1965, executed by Gajjan Singh and Baggu Singh, whereunder the suit property was stated to have been conveyed to their predecessor. According to the plaintiffs, possession had also been delivered contemporaneously with the execution of the sale deed. It was, however, alleged that the revenue records continued to reflect the name of Attar Singh Chela Bhai Gulab Singh in the column of possession, although he had died nearly twenty years prior to the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants were relying upon these revenue entries to threaten interference with their lawful possession, necessitating the institution of the suit.