PARKASHO DEVI Vs. TARSEM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs, against the judgment and decree, passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the Appeal, filed by the defendants, was accepted, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs, Smt. Parkasho Devi, etc., filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering or forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. It was alleged that Chuni Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was in cultivating possession of the suit land under the owners, namely Ajit Singh, etc., and that after the death of Chuni Lal, the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of the suit land, being the widow and sons of Chuni Lal and they were paying rent to the land-owners. It was alleged that the defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land and were threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it was alleged that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land was declared surplus in the hands of the owners and the land vested in the State Government and the Punjab State became the owner of the suit land. It was alleged that the defendants were in cultivating possession of the suit land and the suit land was allotted to them on payment of compensation, under the orders of the Collector. Agrarian dated 17-5-1985. It was denied that Chuni Lal was in cultivating possession of the suit land or that after his death, the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of the suit land and were cultivating the suit land on payment of batai. It was alleged that in fact, the defendants were in possession of the suit land since Rabi 1983, after the earlier occupant of the suit land had left its possession. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed various issues.

(3.) After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and were entitled to injunction. However, the appeal, filed by the defendants, was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs, was dismissed, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their possession over the suit land. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs filed Regular Second Appeal in this Court.