HUKMI Vs. NATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have impugned the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2009 which had endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 04.10.1993 whereby the two suits filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction and declaration to the effect that he is the owner of the suit land (1 bigha 10 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 994, Village Karala, Delhi) as also that the Consolidation Proceedings rendered in the year 1975-76 are inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff had been dismissed.

(2.) TWO suits i.e. Suit No. 391/1980 and Suit No. 90/1981 had been filed by the plaintiff. The first suit was a suit for permanent injunction. Contention of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 & 2 had entered into a partnership for carrying on the business of grinding in the suit premises. Machinery worth Rs. 18,000.00 had been purchased for the said purpose. It was agreed between the parties that this business would be carried out from the suit premises. The plaintiff had constructed a factory on this suit land at his own cost. The business continued for three years; since it was not profitable; partnership was dissolved in 1975. A sum of Rs.10,000.00 each was paid to defendants No. 1 & 2 in full and final settlement of the shares of the said defendants; it was agreed that the suit land would fall to the share of the plaintiff and it was thereupon relinquished in favour of the plaintiff who is the owner and in possession of the land since then. The defendants under the agency of Consolidation Officer had made efforts to grab the land of the plaintiff which is illegal. The suit land does not fall within the definition ofland as defined in Section 2 (d) of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as thesaid Act). The plaintiff is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since last 30 years and his title has matured. The orders of Consolidation Officer dated 12.12.1979 affirmed by the Settlement Officer on 06.08.1980; thereafter by the Additional Collector on 29.12.1980 are illegal and ultravires. A decree of permanent injunction had been prayed restraining the defendants from interfering the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. These were averments in the first suit. Suit No. 391/1980 was filed against the defendants seeking a declaration to the effect that the order of the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer and the Additional Collector (as aforenoted) be declared null and void.

(3.) THE following issues were framed in the first suit:-