MANDEEP KAUR Vs. JAGGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2012. Appeal preferred against the said decree also failed and was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.2013. That is how the plaintiffs are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed a suit claiming themselves to be the owners to the extent of their respective 1/8th share in the land measuring 150 bighas 13 biswas comprised in khewat No. 348, khatauni No. 1603 to 1605, khasra No. 124/2 min(12 -11), 125(36 -9), 293/2(12 -17), 289 min(12 -13),2405/2(9 -7), 2411 min(2 -0), 2495/1/1 (1 -19),2497/2(2 -17), 291/2(6 -14), 297/2 min(10 -2), 405 min(6 -19), 292/2( -3), 405 min(6 -18), 297/2 min(12 -0), 297/2 min(8 -6) and 1/8th share in another land measuring 2 bighas 11 biswas khewat No. 2148, khatauni No. 7229, khasra No. 131 min (2 -11). A further declaration was sought that a civil court decree dated 18.12.1984 passed in Civil Suit No. 654 dated 31.10.1984 by Sub Judge 3rd Class, Bathinda, was null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs as the same was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. By way of consequential relief, the injunction was prayed against the defendants from alienating the suit land.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by defendant No. 3 i.e. the Land Acquisition Collector, PSEB Patiala, it was maintained that, it was not clarified as to how and why defendant No. 3 was arrayed as a party to the suit. Further, the suit property was acquired by the defendants and the amount of compensation was deposited in the Court. Since the lis was between plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2, defendant No. 3 was not involved in any manner in the suit.