OM PARKASH Vs. PRABHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Two parcels of land measuring 7 kanals 15 marlas and 22 kanals, 12 marlas have led the parties to a second round of litigation.

(2.) The first round started with regard to a dispute relating to 7 kanals 15 marlas on Oct. 10, 1974 A civil suit was filed by the present plaintiff- respondents, against the defendant-appellant for possession. The suit was decreed by the learned trial court. The judgment was affirmed by the lower appellate court. Regular second appeal No. 1723 of 1979 culminated in a compromise between the parties. As a result, the respondents in the present appellant case agreed to give 4 kanals 3 marlas of land to Umed Singh.

(3.) The second round relates to the other parcel of land measuring 22 kanals, 12 marlas. On July 8, 1974, appellant Nos. 1 to 3 executed a lease-deed for 99 years in favour of defendant-appellant No. 4 Umed Singh. In 1985, the present respondents instituted a suit for declaration that the lease was not binding on them and that they were entitled to a decree for possession with an alternative prayer that the defendant No. 4 shall be deemed to be holding the land in dispute under the plaintiffs on the same terms and conditions as enumerated in the lease deed dated 8.7.1974."Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Two separate written statements were filed the first on behalf of defendant Nos 1 to 3 and 'the second on behalf of defendant No. 4. So far as defendant Nos 1 to 3 are concerned, they pleaded that the lease-deed executed by them in favour of defendant No. 4 was valid and that the plaintiffs had no locus standi, right or title in the property. Defendant No. 4 primarily averred that the names of defendant No. 1 to 3 were appearing in the revenue papers as being in possession of the land in suit and that is why defendant No. 4 took the land in dispute on lease from defendant Nos I to 3. In case, the lease in question is held to be illegal and void the defendant Nos 1 to 3 may kindly be ordered to return the consideration amount of Rs. 13,000.00 to the answering defendant." On these premises, he also avers that "the defendant No. 4, however, has no objection if a decree as prayed for in the alternative be passed in favour of the plaintiffs."