(1.) ACCEPTANCE of appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.10.1995 passed by Dr. Neelam Shangla, the then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Kaithal by the then Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 2.9.1999, has led the appellant to file the present Regular Second Appeal.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiffs, now respondents in this appeal, filed a suit for declaration on the averments that they were Biswedars of Patti Gaddar and as such were co-sharers in the suit land along with other proprietors. It has been averred by them that the proprietors of said Patti were numerous and it was not practicable and expedient to implead them as plaintiffs in their personal capacity. The interests of all the proprietors of Patti Gaddar were the same as that of the plaintiffs and there was no conflict in their interest and as such the plaintiffs filed the present suit for themselves and as representatives of Patti Gaddar after prior permission of the Court. The defendant threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs whereupon suit No. 452 of 1973 was filed on 24.3.1973 and the said suit was decreed except Khasra No. 198 on 30.11.1976 by the then Sub Judge IInd Class, Kaithal and the plaintiffs were held to be owners in possession of suit land. The plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No. 1167/12 of 1984. The said appeal was accepted by the then Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in respect of Khasra No. 198. The defendant, in collusion with revenue official, without any rhyme or reason and without any notice to the plaintiffs got a false and bogus mutation No. 4013 in respect of suit land entered in its name on the basis of some letters dated 16.11.1973.
(3.) THE learned trial Court decided issue Nos. 1 to 3 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant. As a result of said findings, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.1995.