OM PARKASH Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.1.1980, passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.4.1979 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 Shri Om Parkash, now appellant, from interfering in their possession over the suit land.

(2.) The case set-up by the plaintiffs before the trial Court was that the property fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint was jointly owned by the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 5. The property was under the tenancy of Shri Garib Ram son of Har Lal, who according to the plaintiffs, died issue less about four years ago prior to the date of the institution of the suit which was instituted somewhere in Aug., 1974. In this manner, the tenancy of Shri Garib Ram came to an end and the land reverted back in the hands of the joint owners. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant No. 1 Shri Om Parkash, now appellant, had nothing to do with the land and he wants to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property by force on the pretext that he is the adopted son of Shri Garib Ram. According to the plaintiffs, Shri Garib Ram never adopted Shri Om Parkash as his son and even if there was any such adoption it was void and illegal and defendant No. 1 could not interfere in possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further alleged that defendant No. 1 in collusion with the village Patwari, had got Girdawari of the land for Kharif 1973 to Rabi 1974 recorded in his name against the law and facts and in the garb of that Shri Om Parkash had been threatening the plaintiffs to oust them. Even if, it is held that Shri Om Parkash is adopted son of Shri Garib Ram still the tenancy of Garib Ram stood determined by his denial of the title of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 was persuaded to see this reason and not to interfere into their possession but he is adamant. With the above allegations the plaintiffs prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering in their possession over the suit land.

(3.) In the alternative, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that if defendant No. 1 was found in possession of the suit property, a decree for possession may be passed in their favour.