DEVI CHAND Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT BODHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Karnal in Civil Appeal No. 68/13 of 1979 vide which he had modified the decree passed by the learned Sub Judge II Class, Kaithal. The appellants of this appeal are the original plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. In the first appeal, the respondent was the appellant and the present appellants were the respondents.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that the agricultural land comprised in Rect. No. 3, Killas No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 8, Rect. No. 3 Killa No. 24 and 23 East, Rect. No. 3, Killa No. 21 situated within the revenue estate of village Bodhni, Tehsil Guhla and vide a civil court decree, the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the said land. There was a consolidation proceedings in the year 1957-58 and in that consolidation, the land mentioned above of the plaintiffs was included in the area of Gram Panchayat as the decree passed in their favour was not incorporated in the revenue record. The plaintiffs, therefore, preferred an appeal against the order of the consolidation officer and in that appeal the land mentioned above was excluded from the area of the Gram Panchayat and was included in Kurra of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs have come to know that the defendant is going to auction the land mentioned above, though it has no right, title or interest to do so. The defendant actually tried to auction the suit land on 29. 5. 1977 but due to the timely intervention, the defendant was restrained from auctioning the land. The plaintiffs have filed the suit with a prayer that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful and lawful possession of the plaintiffs over the land mentioned above or to lease out the said land by auction or in any manner.

(3.) THE trial court vide judgment dated 26. 8. 78 came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and that the impugned decree was not proved to be null and void; that the plaintiffs were not in unauthorised possession of the suit land and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed ordering permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.