KHUSHAL Vs. NATHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 2 to 13 are the appellants.

(2.) The 1st respondent is the plaintiff. He filed a suit, Civil Suit No. 1089 of 1987 on the file of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Sirsa for a declaration that he is owner of the suit land measuring 194 Kanals 6 Marlas situated in Village Bani and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 15.10.1980 and the subsequent order dated 16.3.1981 of the Allotment Authority and the entries in the revenue record showing defendants No. 2 to 13 to be the owners of the suit land are null and void and not binding on him and for recovery of possession of the land and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from alienating and transferring the suit land. According to the plaintiff, he became owner in possession of the suit land as per the decree dated 17.1.1974 under which an exchange of the land has been recognised between him and the 1st defendant. Ignoring this decree, the Prescribed Authority declared the suit land as surplus in the hands of the 1st defendant Ramji Lal by an order dated 15.10.1980 and the said land was allotted and utilised by an order dated 16.3.1981 in favour of defendants 2 to 13 by the Allotment Authority, Sirsa and the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit land forcibly and illegally and in the revenue record, the defendants 2 to 13 were entered as owners. Further according to the plaintiff, the order dated 15.10.1980, 16.3.1981 and the action of the revenue authorities are illegal and not binding on him on the following grounds:-

(3.) Defendants 2 to 13 contested the suit contending inter alia that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and the same is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. They further pleaded that any transaction effected by the 1st defendant after the appointed day is liable to be ignored and that the Civil Court decree dated 17.1.1974 is a collusive one and, therefore, it was rightly ignored and the said decree did not vest any right or title in favour of the plaintiff in regard to the suit land and that the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 15th October, 1980 declaring the suit land as surplus is valid and the order of allotment dated 16.3.1981 has been validly issued and since the allottees also deposited the instalments, they were put In possession of the suit property and the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.