BANT RAM Vs. BANTA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BANT Ram and others, ten plaintiffs, filed the suit in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, with the allegations that the property in dispute was the joint property of the proprietary body of the village and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with the connivance of some of the members of the panchayat encroached upon a portion of Khasra No. 329/2 and wanted to raise a construction over it. In this suit defendant No. 3 was impleaded as a pro forma defendant and defendants Nos. 4 to 8 were impleaded defendants because an application was made on their behalf for being impleaded as such.

(2.) IN the written statements filed on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 it was pleaded that they did not encroach upon any part of Khasra No. 329/2 and if any part of this Khasra No. Was in their possession they were entitled to retain it as members of the village proprietary body. Upon the pleas raised by the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:--1. Whether defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have encroached or occupied any portion of the land in suit? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing this suit by their acts and conduct? 3. Whether the site plan is correct? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the suit in the representative form is not maintainable? 6. Whether defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are in possession of their own share in the common land of the parties? If so, with what effect? 7. Relief.

(3.) THIS suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, before whom a preliminary objection was raised that the suit had abated because of the death of two of the persons who had been permitted to sue in a representative capacity during the pendency of the suit. This plea found favour with the learned Additional district Judge who held that the suit had abated. The appeal filed by defendants nos. 1 and 2 was consequently dismissed and the parties were left to bear their own costs. The cross objections filed by the opposite side were also dismissed. It is obvious that the learned Additional District Judge did not give any finding on the merits of the controversy.