AJAY Vs. SURENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 10.05.05, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhajjar, vide which, it decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction of the plaintiffs (now respondents), and the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.08, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, vide which, it dismissed the appeal.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs/respondents, claimed that they were in possession, over the land, in dispute, as non-occupancy tenants, under Smt. Sarjo Bila Lagaan Bawajah Derina. It was stated that the defendants forged a lease deed, purported to have been executed, by Smt. Ram Kaur, in respect of the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the lease deed, was illegal, void and inoperative, against the rights of the plaintiffs/respondents. It was further stated that the defendants had got no right, in the property, in dispute, on the basis of the said forged lease deed. They threatened to interfere into the possession of the plaintiffs, over the property, in dispute. They were many a time, asked not to do so. On their final refusal, to desist from their illegal designs, left with no other alternative, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, was filed.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck :- (i) Whether the plaintiffs are tenants Gair Marusi in possession over the suit land as detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint ? OPP. (ii) Whether the defendants are illegally interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land ? OPP. (iii) Whether the decree dated 18.2.1998 regarding the lease rights in favour of Rajender etc. is liable to be set aside being wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on the possessory rights of the plaintiffs ? OPP. (iv) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. (v) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. (vi) Whether the plaintiffs are stopped estopped from filing the present suit by their act and condujct? OPD. (vii) Whether the suit of teh plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of perties? OPD. (viii) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD. (ix) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under Section 35-A C.P.C. ? OPD. (x) Relief.