DARSHAN SINGH Vs. SUKHVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.10957-C/2010 is allowed and amended grounds of appeal are taken on record.

(2.) RSA No.205/2009

(3.) Facts necessary for the decision of the present second appeal are that plaintiff/appellant-Darshan Singh filed a suit for declaration with the averments that he was owner in possession of land measuring 99 kanals 6 marlas situated at Village Sukhmanpur, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, comprised in four khewats as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92. Defendants 5 and 6 filed an application for partition of the abovesaid four khewats vide application dated 1.6.1990 titled as Sukh Ram etc. v. Darshan Singh which was decided by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ratia vide order dated 30.1.1992. Plaintiff laid challenge to said partition proceedings on the ground that no notice of the same was given to him as he was in jail and thus he was not granted any opportunity to join the proceedings and the partition application was decided at his back. It was further alleged that on the basis of order dated 30.1.1992 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ratia, mutation no.817 dated 20.3.1995 was sanctioned. It was also the case of the plaintiff that defendants 5 and 6 on the basis of partition proceedings/mutation gave 11 kanals 16 marlas of land out of said four khewats to defendant no.7 in exchange vide Civil Suit No.1150 decided on 28.10.1995 by the then Sub Judge Ist Class,Fatehabad. It was thus prayed that decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 99 kanals 6 marlas be passed and the order dated 30.1.1992 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade,Ratia passed in partition proceedings; mutations sanctioned thereupon as well as judgment and decree dated 28.10.1995 passed in Civil Suit no.1150 were wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void and liable to be set aside. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land in excess of their share and from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was also sought.