RAVINDER SINGH Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact, whereby the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for injunction against the appellants-defendants has been decreed by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) The respondents-plaintiffs instituted the suit for directing the defendants to remove the wall A, B, C and D set up by defendant No.4 and foundations at EFGH by defendant Nos.5 to 8 and permanent prohibitory injunction directing the defendants not to raise any construction or structure of any type on the site JKCI and not interfere in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs and other proprietors. The plaintiffs alleged that they were the descendants of the original owner and were co- proprietors of abadi deh bearing khasra No.74 of Village Hajipur, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. Defendant Nos.4 to 10 claimed to have purchased of part of the site JKCI from defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3. Defendant No.4 claimed to have purchased site ABCD and defendant Nos.5 to 8, EFGH and defendants No.9 and 10, IFG from defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, who were none-else, but the legal heirs of Kessar Singh and migrants from Village Gurdaspur. In fact, Kessar Singh had no share and interest in abadi deh and therefore, could not sell part of the site in the manner and mode as mentioned above. It was alleged that plaintiffs were co-sharers and co- proprietors of the suit property and filed the suit for the benefit of all the proprietors/plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendants opposed the suit by raising objection qua its maintainability, non-joinder of all the proprietor and being barred under Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The status of the plaintiffs as co-proprietors was denied. It was further denied that it was being used for common purpose and benefit of the proprietors, but the factum of co-proprietorship was admitted. It was asserted that defendant Nos.1 to 3, their ancestors and predecessors including the defendants, have been sole owners in exclusive possession of the suit land and therefore, the plaintiffs had no right to disturb their possession and their transferees except through partition of joint khata of land of Khasra No.74 measuring 201 kanals 1 marals. The defendants had every right to enjoy and to retain the possession as well as transfer the land. The locus of the plaintiffs to challenge the same was objected.