PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. SANTOSH AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application under Sec. 151 CPC is filed for permission to place on record the Synopsis, List of Dates and Sequence of events along with the translated copies of the relevant Lower Court Record. After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of Vineet Aggarwal s/o Brijeshwar Aggarwal, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and aforesaid documents are taken on record. RSA-5524-2014 Present Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 against the judgment of reversal dtd. 19/9/2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, in Civil Appeal No.130 of 2010, whereby appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 herein, was allowed; and the judgment and decree dtd. 10/9/2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon (Jind), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, was set aside. RSA-3206-2015 Present Second Appeal has been filed by defendant No.3 against the judgment of reversal dtd. 19/9/2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, in Civil Appeal No.130 of 2010, whereby appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 herein, was allowed; and the judgment and decree dtd. 10/9/2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon (Jind), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, was set aside. Both the above-said Second Appeals are being disposed of by this common order as both appeals are arising out of common impugned order; and both appeals are between the same parties; and the facts, issues and dispute involved in both the appeals are identical.For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from RSA-5524-2014 filed by defendants No.1 and 2.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 herein had filed a suit 'seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from digging, laying foundation, raising any kind of construction earth filling etc. and from making any kind of interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and Proforma defendant No.4 as owner over the plot measuring about 252 square yards comprised in khasra No.397 min (397/2 and 397/5) situated at Railway Road, Safidon and which is bounded as under:- East:- 88' street West:- 82' Shop and building of defendants No.1 & 2. North:- 28' Railway Road. South:- 26' street. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land.)'

(3.) It was the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and pro-forma defendant No.4 (pro-forma respondent No.4 in the present appeal as well), were owners in possession of the suit land by way of private partition i.e. Bahmi Batwara dtd. 15/1/1989, mutation No.6753 and 6905, partly by way of mutual transfer, Tabadla, also through Bahmi Batwara Yaddast dtd. 22/8/1997 and through release deed No.3452 dtd. 28/3/2006, to the extent of their total 2/3rd share i.e. 255 square yards in which 1/3rd share had come to plaintiff No.3 by mutual transfer with his brother Umesh Aggarwal. It was further pleaded that defendant No.3 (appellant in connected RSA-3206-2015) had already sold his 1/3rd share (124 square yards) in the suit land to the defendants No.1 and 2 vide Sale Deed No.569 dtd. 15/7/1997, pursuant to which no part of the suit land was in ownership of defendant No.3 and therefore, he was not entitled to alienate land out of Khasra No.397. It was pleaded that in the above-said Sale Deeds of 1997, land of plaintiff No.3 has been mentioned on the eastern side of the sold plots, thereby clearly admitting ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Otherwise also, on the basis of 1/3rd share in Khasra No.397min, the defendant No.3 has already sold his entire share 124 square yards to the defendants No.1 and 2 in the year 1997. Now, the defendants want to raise construction upon the suit land without any right and authority and want to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land want to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land illegally and forcibly, for which the defendants have no right. In case, the defendants succeeded in doing so, then the plaintiffs shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated by costs. As such, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit on dtd. 1/4/2006.