DHARAMVIR Vs. PRITHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of RSA Nos. 1221 of 1989 and 1225 of 1989. The appeals are being taken up and decided together as the facts involved are similar and over-lapping. Both appeals arise out of suits for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. While RSA No. 1221 of 1989 is by the defendants (Dharamvir, etc.) against whom the Courts below have decided by decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs (Prithi Singh, etc.), RSA. No. 1225 of 1989 is by the plaintiffs (Dharambir, etc.) against whom the Courts below have decided by dismissing their suit filed against the defendants (Pirthi, etc.). Thus, both appeals have common contesting parties and a common suit land.

(2.) On 19.9.1984 Dharambir, etc. filed a suit [CS. No. 478] for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against Prithi, etc. alleging that they were in possession of the suit land since the time of their forefathers and were also co-sharers in the shallot Patti and that Prithi, etc. had no concern with the suit land. The suit was contested by Prithi, etc. who filed written statement averring inter-alia that Dharambir, etc., in collusion with the Patwari, had got their names entered in the Khasra Girdawris qua the suit land though they had no concern with the suit land.

(3.) On 3.10.1984 Prithi, etc. filed a suit [CS. No. 528] for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against Dharambir, etc. alleging that they were owners in possession of the suit land since the time of their forefathers and that Dharambir, etc., in collusion with the Patwari, had got their names entered in the Khasra Girdawris qua the suit land and on the basis of these wrong entries were forcibly trying to dispossess Prithi, etc. and that the said revenue entries be declared null and void. The suit was contested by Dharambir, etc. who filed written statement denying the ownership of Prithi, etc. over the suit land and contending that Dharambir, etc. were in fact in possession of the suit land and that the revenue entries in favour of Prithi, etc. were wrong and forged.