KARAM SINGH Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine shall dispose of a R.S.A. No. 2528 of 1989 and E.S.A. No. 2529 of 1989 as common issues are involved therein. The appellants/defendants are in appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree of the Courts below, whereby suit filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the property in dispute in their own right, was decreed and further the appellants/defendants were restrained from dispossessing the respondents/plaintiffs in any manner in execution of the decree passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Nabha on May 27, 1983 in Suit No. 1184 of July 21, 1982 titled as "Karam Singh v. Jangir Kaur. At the time of hearing, learned senior counsel for the appellant sought to argue the appeal raising the following substantial questions of law :-

(2.) THE facts of the case in dispute have been noticed from R.S.A. No. 2528 of 1989. 72 kanals of land was owned by Jangir Kaur, mother of respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs. There is nothing on record to suggest as to whether the property owned by Jangir Kaur was her self acquired property or inherited property. Out of total land, she suffered a consent decree in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs for land measuring 17 bighas on October 5, 1977. There is no averment in the suit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs to the effect that there was any family settlement on the basis of which the decree was suffered by her. The decree which created rights in favour of respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs was not got registered by them. The same was not given effect to even in the revenue record as mutation was not entered in favour of the respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs. The respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs were shown in the revenue records in possession of the land only as tenants.

(3.) STILL further it is submitted that an earlier suit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs on June 3, 1985 claiming the same relief was dismissed for non-prosecution on June 18, 1985. Accordingly, the present suit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4/plaintiffs was not maintainable being barred under Section 11CPC and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-