(1.) THIS order will dispose of R. S. As Nos. 746 and 960 of 1965. These are cross-appeals and have arisen in the following circumstances:-2. A suit under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by Rabi ram and others, who are Ramdasias of village Rahaun, Tehsil Samrala, District ludhiana, for a declaration that the site in dispute consisting of Khasra Nos. 1259, 1260, 1020, 1062 and 118 entered in the Jamabandi of 1945-46 is the exclusive property of the Ramdasias and they have been in adverse possession thereof and thus became the absolute owners of the same. It was further urged that in view of the provisions of the Wajib-ul-arz the property was not partible as it was being used as a graveyard, a pond, a thoroughfare and a place where cattle are tethered and dung-cakes are made. It was also claimed that the defendant had no right to evict the plaintiffs. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ejecting the plaintiffs was prayed for.
(2.) THE suit was contested by Dalip Singh, the Khanna Co-operative Society khanna, the Custodian of Evacuee property and the Union of India. The case set up by the defendants was that the plaintiffs were not in possession and therefore, their suit for injunction could not be maintained. It was claimed that the property in dispute was evacuee property and its allotment by the Custodian to defendant no. 1 Dalip Singh could not be questioned in a Civil Court. The other contentions of the plaintiffs were controverted.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issued were framed:-1. Has this Court no jurisdiction? Is the suit maintainable in the present form? Is the suit barred under Section 11 and by Order 2, Rule 2, Code of civil Procedure? Is the suit liable to be stayed under Section 10, Code of Civil procedure? Is the suit correctly valued for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction? Have the plaintiffs been in adverse possession in the manner claimed; if so, for how long and with what effect? If issue No. 6 is not proved, are the plaintiffs entitled to the user of the site and are not liable to be evicted? Is the suit not within limitation if the plaintiffs are found in possession? Are the plaintiffs entitled to challenge the order of the Custodian general passed between the parties in case?