BANARSI DASS Vs. BRIG MAHARAJA SUKHJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is in appeal. He is aggrieved by the judgment dated May 20, 1992 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in regular second appeal whereby its suit for injunction both perpetual and mandatory was dismissed. The trial Court had also dismissed the suit though he succeeded in the first appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff instituted his suit on May 3, 1986. The sole defendant was Brig. Maharaja Sukhjit Singh. The plaintiff sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering in the land measuring 32 Kls. 12 mls. situated in the revenue estate of Jalandhar of which the plaintiff claimed to be in cultivating possession. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff impleaded Balbir Singh Chandi as defendant No. 2 and amended plaint was filed on June 18, (sic) 1986. Now, the plaintiff said that the first defendant through his attorney Pritpal Singh allowed the second defendant to take forcible and illegal possession of land measuring 1 kanal 12 mls. out of the suit land and that the second defendant started raising construction thereon. The plaintiff, therefore, also sought a relief for mandatory injunction directing the defendants (now respondents) to demolish the construction remove the rubble and vacate the illegal and forcible possession of the land of which he was dispossessed. Claim of the plaintiff was that he was in peaceful cultivating possession of the land and that he got possession of the land through his father Relu Ram who in turn got from his father Ishar. Plaintiff said that the land belonged to the Central Government in the Rehabilitation Department and Ishar, his grand father, was a sub-lessee. The land according to him was an evacuee land. The defendants denied the allegations of the plaintiff. First defendant said that he was the owner of the land though in the revenue record it was the Central Government which was mentioned as cultivator through Banarsi Dass s/o. Behari Lal and the land in dispute was in possession of Bakshi Ram s/o. Ralu. It was submitted that it was Banarsi Dass who was the allottee. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had also filed a suit against Maharaja Paramjit Singh through Pritpal Singh which was dismissed. It was stated that it was Bakshi Ram who was in actual cultivation possession of the land. Second defendant in his written statement said that the plaintiff was not the owner and that in the revenue record he was not shown to be in possession of the land. He pleaded that the land measuring 1 kl. and 12 mls. was purchased by Atam Parkash. Amandeep and Jaswinder Kaur from Maharaja Sukhjit Singh first defendant through his attorney Pritpal Singh by a sale deed (Exhibit D 1) dated February 17, 1986 which was also signed by Bakshi Ram as witness who was in actual possession of the land. Second defendant then said that mutation was duly sanctioned (Exhibit D-2) on May 6, 1986. Jaswinder Kaur is the wife of the second defendant and Atam Parkash and Amandeep are their children. Second defendant said that the possession of the land subject-matter of the sale deed was delivered on the same day and thereafter certain construction was made. The second defendant said that suit against him was not true.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties following issues are framed by the trial Court: