MOTHU RAM Vs. JAGDISH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the second appeal:-

(2.) The second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiffs, who sought for relief of injunction restraining the defendants from altering the revenue entries on the basis of an alleged illegal exchange between defendants 2 and 3 on the one hand and the 1st defendant on the other and that their physical possession of the property in respect of a site described in the plaint as situate within AB CD and EFGH shall be protected. The plaintiffs would refer to the property of an extent of 3 kanals in Khasra No.36/23 as the property set apart at the time of consolidation for extension as abadi for non-proprietors of the village as complete owners thereof. The plaintiffs would contend that the properties were shown as being in their possession in the jamabandis of the year 1976-77 and the cause of action for the suit was that the defendants were making an attempt to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs from the property.

(3.) The defendants took a common line of defence to the effect that the gram panchayat owned various parcels of land measuring about 35 kanals 7 marlas and it wanted to establish a focal point providing for several facilities and it had secured the said extent by way of exchange from the 1st defendant who owned property of an extent of 33 kanals 7 marlas in one block. The suit was originally decreed and in the appeal filed by the 1st defendant, the appellate Court held that there could be no challenge to an action of exchange done through a procedure established by law and the civil court itself did not have a jurisdiction to decide on the plaintiffs' possession and grant the relief of injunction. The Court also adverted to the proceedings of the Collector under which the property had been granted to the defendants and it observed that there was no valid basis for the plaintiffs to claim the property to be in possession and seek for injunction.