MOHAN LAL Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed at the instance of appellants -plaintiffs against the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the plaintiffs' suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and respondent No.4 are the owners in possession of the house bearing No.374 -A shown green in the colour in the site plan situated at Dr. Bal Krishan Road, Krishan Nagar, Hoshiarpur, measuring 0 -4 marlas and seeking restraint by way of permanent injunction, restraining defendants No.1 -3 from taking possession of the said house and interfering in any manner in their possession over the said house and in the alternative, suit for possession of the property shown green in colour in the site plan bearing house No.374 -A has been dismissed.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY , the brief facts as culled out from the impugned judgments and decrees are that the plaintiffs filed the aforementioned suit on the ground that they had purchased the property measuring 4 marlas of land from Parduman Singh, vide sale deed dated 02.05.1988. It has been further stated that one Lachmi Devi widow of Khushi Ram expired and defendant No.4, being daughter of Khushi Ram was her heir. Parduman Singh was owner of land measuring 10 marlas in all out of which he sold 6 marlas bearing house No.B - 16/MCH -385 to defendants No.1 to 3 and their father Gurcharan Singh. Gurcharan Singh and defendants No.1 to 3 obtained ejectment orders with regard to the portion of the house No.B - 16/MCH -385 against Khushi Ram and Joginder Pal.

(3.) IT is pertinent to mention here that appellants -plaintiffs are none else but children of Khusi Ram and Lachmi Devi. Plaintiffs further averred that under the guise of ejectment orders, defendants No.1 and 2, and Gurcharan Singh intend to take possession of H.No.B -16/MCH -374 -A, owned and possessed by plaintiffs and defendant No.4. It was further averred that plaintiffs and defendant No.4 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Gurcharan Singh and defendants No.1 to 3, which was decided on 10.11.1993. In appeal, the suit was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh on the same cause of action and the question of title was kept open and therefore, the present suit claiming declaration had been filed. It was further stated that defendants No.1 to 3 had no concern with the suit property bearing H.No.B -16/MCH -374 -A measuring 4 marlas as they are owners of 6 marlas of land bearing H.No.16/MCH -385 and even the Municipal record also discloses property pertaining to H.No/N - 16/MCH -374 -A to be recorded in the name of plaintiffs. Defendants had already succeeded in taking possession of the suit property through execution No.7 of 17.2.2007 titled as Ajit Singh vs. Joginder Pal and therefore, prayed for alternative relief of possession.