VED PARKASH Vs. VIJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the suit land was decreed in appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that land measuring 5 kanals was owned by one Kuldeep Singh but Sheotaj Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, was in possession of the said land as tenant. The land was declared surplus in the hands of Kuldeep Singh which was challenged by Sheotaj Singh before the civil Court by way of suit for declaration. The said suit was decreed. The plaintiff and defendants No. 8 and 9 obtained ownership rights in the said property but defendant No. 1 had alienated the suit property in favour of defendants No. 2 to 7 by way of registered sale deed fraudulently and defendant No. 1 has no right, title or interest to alienate the suit property. It was the stand of the defendants that after the land was declared surplus, the land was allotted to defendant No. 1 and suit property in favour of defendants No. 2 to 7 by way of registered sale deed fraudulently and defendant No. 1 has no right, title or interest to alienate the suit property. It was the stand of the defendants that after the land was declared surplus, the land was allotted to defendant No. 1 and thereafter the said property has been sold by defendant No. 1 to defendants No. 2 to 7 by way of registered sale deed dated 31.08.1999 and, thus, prayed that the suit is dismissed.

(3.) The learned trial Court dismissed the suit but the learned first Appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and decreed the suit. It was held that allotment of land to Chander Bhan defendant No.1 was cancelled on 24.06.1986 vide order Exhibit PZ and a previous suit for injunction filed by Sheotaj Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was decreed on 8.9.1987 vide decree Exhibit PX. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed on 21.01.1992 vide judgment Exhibit PY. In the said judgment, it was found that allotment in favour of defendant No. 1 was cancelled and the suit land was taken out of the surplus pool and given to the plaintiff as tenant's permissible area. The cancellation of allotment in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 was found to be legal vide order dated 24.06.1986 and consequently it was found that the plaintiff is owner of the suit land as successor-in-interest of Sheotaj Singh.