GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. JAGE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant regular second appeal has been filed by appellantdefendant No.4 (henceforth called 'the appellant') seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2006 passed by the first Appellate Court whereby, the appeal filed by respondents No.1 and 2-plaintiffs (henceforth called 'respondents No.1 and 2') against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2006 passed by the lower court, dismissing the suit of respondents No.1 and 2, has been allowed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that respondents No.1 and 2 filed a civil suit seeking declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the appellant as well as predecessors-in-interest of respondents No.3 to 12 i.e. defendants No.1 to 3 on the ground that the suit land measuring 08 kanals 11 marlas situated in village Alimudinpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon was mortgaged by predecessors-in-interest of respondents No.3 to 12 in lieu of consideration of Rs. 11,000/- vide registered mortgage deed dated 26.10.1983 and possession was also delivered to them. It was submitted that at the time of mortgaging the suit land, it was agreed that respondents No.1 and 2 could deal with the land in any manner they like and they could make improvements on it. Thereafter, respondents No.1 and 2 levelled the suit land and raised six rooms and one baithak for tethering of bullocks and for storing food grains for cattle etc. apart from constructing a water tank and boundary wall. It was averred that predecessors-in-interest of respondents No.3 to 12 had filed an application for redemption of the suit land before the court of A.C. Ist Grade, Gurgaon, who by his order dated 30.05.1995 held that they were no more bhondedars, so their right had extinguished and they were not entitled to the possession of the suit land. It was further ordered that possession of the suit land should be delivered to the appellant i.e. Gram Panchayat. It was alleged that the said order of A.C. Ist Grade was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. It was submitted that in case, the appellant was entitled to take possession of the suit land, as per order of A.C. Ist Grade, the petition for redemption could only be filed by the appellant and not by predecessors-in-interest of respondents No.3 to 12. It was stated that A.C. Ist Grade also did not mention in his order the fact that at the time of redemption of the suit land, the predecessors-in-interest of respondents No.3 to 12 were liable to pay costs of the construction, which was raised over the suit land. It was pleaded that in case, the appellant succeeded in taking forcible possession of the suit land from respondents No.1 and 2, they will suffer an irreparable loss and injury.

(3.) Upon notice, predecessors-in-interest of respondents No.3 to 12 filed their written statement with the submissions that since the suit land was mortgaged with possession to respondents No.1 and 2, therefore, they were entitled to use the land in any manner and they were also entitled to make improvements. It was denied that they were liable to pay the amount spent for raising the alleged construction. It was admitted that they had filed an application for redemption of the suit land before A.C. Ist Grade, while submitting that the order passed by A.C. Ist Grade was illegal and without jurisdiction.