BHARPUR SINGH Vs. PRITAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -plaintiffs filed the civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents praying that the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly and illegally or otherwise interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession of land measuring 154 Bighas 4 Biswas, which is in their possession.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioners pleaded that Basant Kaur was owner of the disputed land, it was demised to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 500/- per annum as Chakota, since then they are in its cultivating possession as tenants under Basant Kaur and after her death under her daughter Dalip Kaur to the extent of l/3rd share on account of registered will executed by Basant Kaur in their favour. Inderjit Singh also executed a will in favour of respondent-defendants 1 to 3 and Bhupinder Kaur (now deceased) and represented by respondent-defendants 4 to 6. Dalip Kaur also died and was succeeded by respondents 1 to 3 and Bhupinder Kaur (now deceased) and represented by respondent-defendants 4 to 6. Dalip Kaur also died and was succeeded by respondents 1 to 3 and Bhupinder Kaur (now deceased), her daughter. Thus, respondent-defendant's have become owners of the suit land. The said ownership is subject to decision of Regular Second Appeal No. 1627 of 1990, which is pending in the High Court. Plaintiff-petitioners pleaded that they are in continuous occupation of the suit land as tenants for the last 40 years and their possession is continuous, uninterrupted and is protected by the Tenancy Laws. They also pleaded that formerly Dalip Kaur etc. filed a suit for ejectment as well as for recovery of rental arrears against the plaintiff-petitioners in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Malerkotla, which was decreed by the learned Collector on 27. 10. 1975 holding that plaintiff-petitioners are liable to pay Rs. 1500/- as arrears of rent for the last three years, landlord's claim for their ejectment was declined. Thus, defendant-respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner; Patiala, which is still pending as the question of title is yet to be decided in the aforementioned Regular Second Appeal.

(3.) WHEN these facts were placed before the lower court, the lower court dismissed their injunction petition. Plaintiff-petitioners filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sangrur. The appeal was also dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs have suppressed the aforementioned orders passed by the High Court and further they have not complied with the order of the High Court dated 19. 10. 1993 and failed to furnished security.