SHAM SUNDER Vs. LAJJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) against the judgment of reversal accepting the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent holding that the plaintiff-respondents were entitled to injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit land as per details given in the heading of the plaint.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a Civil Suit No. 43 of 1982 on 23.1.1982 seeking a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-respondents were owner in possession of the plot comprised in Khewat No. 428 Min. measuring 1 Kanal 10 Marlas situated at Safidon (Haryana). It was further prayed that the sale deed executed by defendant-respondent No. 7 in favour of the defendant-appellants on 11.12.1981 be declared void ab initio as it has been executed without any right or authority. It was claimed that it does not effect the rights of the plaintiff-respondents. A further prayer made was that defendant-appellants be restrained from forcibly occupying the suit land and interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondents. The alternative prayer was also made that the plaintiff-respondents be delivered back the possession if they were not found to be in possession or deprived of possession forcibly during the pendency of the suit. It was still further claimed that the plaintiff Lajja Ram (who is now represented by his LRs) and proforma-defendant No. 8 have been the owners in possession in equal shares of the disputed land and a decree to that effect was passed by the Civil Judge in Civil Suit titled Lajja Ram v. Bharat Bhushan decided on 4.8.1979 and the same has been upheld in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. An apprehension was expressed that defendant-respondent No. 1 through his Power of Attorney has sold the aforementioned land through the registered sale deed to defendant-appellants although he knew that the land did not belong to him.

(3.) THE learned Additional District Judge, Jind has reversed the judgment of the trial Court and has reached the conclusion that the land, which was subject matter of the sale deed dated 11.12.1981 is different and has got nothing to do with the land in respect of which injunction has been claimed by the plaintiff-respondents. The trial Court found that the land purchased by defendant-appellants from defendant-respondent No. 7 is different from the suit land. The plaintiff-respondents were neither held to be owner nor in possession of the suit land and the issues No. 1 and 2 were accordingly decided against the plaintiff-respondents and in favour of the defendant- appellants. It was further held under issue No. 3 that the sale deed executed by defendant-respondent No. 7 in favour of defendant-appellants on 11.12.1981 is not void ab initio because defendant-respondent No. 7 has been a co-sharer in Khasra No. 428. Therefore, the defendant-appellants also became co-sharer. The findings recorded on issue No. 4 were that defendant-appellants were in possession of the plot purchased by them vide registered sale deed dated 11.12.1981 and the said pot is not the land in dispute. So the issue was decided accordingly. Issue No. 5 was decided against the defendant-appellants and the suit was held to be maintainable. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal the findings recorded by the trial Court on issues No. 1 to 4 were challenged and the learned Additional District Judge held that once the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the land purchased by defendant- appellants from defendant-respondent No. 7 is different than the suit land, then it should have recorded the finding as to whether the suit land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff-respondents. It could not have held that the land, which is covered by the sale deed Ex. P-1 dated 11.12.1981 is different than the suit land, then the plaintiff-respondents were not owner in possession. The views of the learned Additional District Judge on the afore- mentioned issues read as under :-