KRISHNA DEVI Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs (respondents No.1 to 4) are joint owners in possession with defendants No.1 to 9 (i.e. proforma respondents No. 5 to 8 & 10 to 14) according to their respective shares in the suit land and mutation Nos.688 and 689 in favour of defendants No.10 to 15 (i.e appellant) are wrong and have no effect over the ownership of the plaintiffs and are required to be set aside with further consequential relief of restraining the defendants to alienate any specific portion of the joint suit land, more than their share and restraining the appellants from alienating the suit property, was decreed with costs.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff-respondents in brief is that they were joint owners in possession of the suit land with defendants No.1 to 9 being legal heirs of deceased Mehar Singh and Haria who acquired this property through pre-emption decree passed by the then Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, in Civil Suit No.112 of 1941 decided on 28.4.1942 and mutation No.688 and 689 dated 5.10.1994 in favour of defendants No.10 to 15 (appellants) was illegal null and void being the result of fraud. It was submitted that the defendants were threatening the plaintiffs to alienate the specific portion out of the suit property and when they refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff-respondents, the present suit was filed. Upon notice, apart from taking preliminary objections, on merits the ownership of the plaintiffs was denied over the suit property and it was submitted that on the basis of the mutations in their favour, they were owners in possession of the suit land. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit.

(3.) The only argument raised before the Lower Appellate Court by the appellants was that the suit was not maintainable as without describing the Khasra numbers of the land in dispute, the possession of the plaintiff- respondents was not proved on the file. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed as under:-