GULZARA SINGH Vs. BRIJ RAJ SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 20.02.2006. As even the appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was dismissed vide judgement dated 02.12.2011, 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.) In a suit filed by the plaintiffs, under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), they prayed for a declaration that the plaintiffs as also the persons mentioned in the list attached, were owners/co-sharers in possession of a land measuring 15842 kanals 1 marla, along with the defendants, and thus, had a right to cut grass, take timber and wood of the trees and graze their cattle in the suit land. A decree for injunction was also claimed restraining the defendants from interfering in cutting the grass, taking timber and grazing the cattle in the suit property by the plaintiffs and also from alienating the same in any manner. It was maintained that the suit property as also the land in lieu of which the same was allotted, was joint between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties. The suit land was Shamlat Deh Mustarka Malkan Hasab Rasad Khewat.

(3.) Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest, in connivance with the revenue officials, managed to have the names of the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest removed from the revenue record. But despite that plaintiffs have been cutting the grass and grazing their cattle in the suit property along with the defendants without any interference. For, in the last two months, defendants denied that the plaintiffs had any right in the suit land and also obstructed the plaintiffs from free and full enjoyment of their rights, thus the suit. In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was barred under Section 11 CPC, in view of decision of Civil Suit No.189/79, decided on 19.12.1980, Civil Suit No.1/1946 decided on 21.03.1947, Civil Appeal No.325/47 decided on 28.02.1948, RSA No.957/51 decided on 24.04.1952 and Civil Suit No.532/90 decided on 27.10.1993. Further, plaintiffs had failed to comply with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, which were mandatory in nature.