CHARANJIT SINGH & OTHERS Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.

(2.) A suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendantrespondent from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs-appellants and restraining him from felling the trees standing in the land as described in the head note of the plaint, was instituted by the plaintiffs-appellants. It was pleaded that the suit land is a part of a bigger khatoni measuring 89 kanals 8 marlas and the suit land is within the share of the plaintiffs-appellants.

(3.) Plaintiff-appellant no.7, Amarjit Singh was owner of the land to the extent of 1/2 share and Kamaljit Singh, Paramjit Singh sons of Rajinder Singh and Rajinder Singh son of Jai Singh were the owners to the extent of the other 1/2 share. By virtue of sale deed dated 11.8.1994 the aforementioned Rajinder Singh, Kamaljit Singh and Paramjit Singh sold their 1/2 share to plaintiffsappellants no.1 to 6 for a sale consideration, a sum of Rs.80,000/-. Prior to the sale deed dated 11.8.1994 the aforesaid three persons namely Rajinder Singh, Kamaljit Singh and Paramjit Singh had entered into an agreement to sell for one killa of the land in favour of Gurbachan Singh, Joginder Singh, Mahender Singh and Kaur Singh sons of Bagga Singh on 24.5.1989. At that point of time the would be vendees and plaintiff-appellant no.7 had planted popular trees in the land to the extent of 2 kanals on the Southern side of the land. It was pleaded that the agreement dated 24.5.1989 did not ripen into a sale deed and rather the sale deed dated 11.8.1994 was executed in favour of plaintiffs-appellants no.1 to 6. As such it was averred that the suit land was transferred in favour of plaintiffs-appellants no.1 to 6 along with the popular trees. It was also pleaded that at the time of the agreement to sell dated 24.5.1989 in favour of Gurbachan Singh and others being in existence, the defendant-respondent had filed a suit for injunction against Gurbachan Singh and others seeking the relief of injunction to restrain them from interfering in the possession of the present defendant-respondent as also to restrain them from cutting the trees. On 23.8.1994 the Trial Court had dismissed the suit. It was also averred that the defendant-respondent thereupon had filed an appeal before the District Judge, Kapurthala and by that time the defendant-respondent in that suit had ceased to have any interest in the land as the present plaintiffs-appellants no.1 to 6 had become owners of the suit land and accordingly a statement had been given before the District Judge that the defendants in that case having no right or interest in the suit property and accordingly they would not interfere in the possession of the suit property. It was apprehension of the plaintiffsappellants that the defendant-respondent was bent on cutting the trees and as such the suit had been filed.