SAMPURAN SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal, challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff -respondent for possession of land measuring 2 kanals 8 marlas has been decreed. As per the averments made in the suit, land bearing khasra No. 221//18/1(7 -2) Khewat No. 393, Khatoni No. 975 situated in Village Bhaloor, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga was owned by the Central Government and was in exclusive possession of the plaintiff -respondent. The Central Government sold the said land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 13,313/ - vide conveyance deed dated 27.3.2009. However, after execution of the said conveyance deed, the appellant started raising dispute with the plaintiff -respondent on the ground that the sale deed should have been got registered jointly with him and took forcible possession of the suit land measuring 2 Kanals 8 Marlas out of khasra No. 221//18/1(7 -2). It was further pleaded that the defendant/appellant had got no concern with the said land of the plaintiff/respondent measuring 2 kanal 8 marla. Thus, suit was filed for possession of the aforesaid land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from lifting earth or changing nature of the suit land except in due course of law.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the appellant and written statement was filed raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff as well as the defendant are real brothers and land bearing khasra No. 221//18/1(7 -2) was jointly possessed by them since long. However, the plaintiff got auctioned the said land in his favour in connivance with the revenue officials at the back of the defendant. The defendant was also eligible to participate in the alleged auction being in settled possession of the land in question since long and since the land was auctioned in favour of the plaintiff without following proper procedure and the appellant was in lawful cultivating possession of the same, therefore, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit? OPD