RAJIV KUMAR Vs. BISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved, appellants -plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have preferred the present appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 2.6.1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Una whereby the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1988 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Una, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, have been affirmed.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of the present appeal are as follows:

(3.) The plaintiffs instituted a suit against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for declaration that the land comprising khewat No. 147 khatauni Nos. 352 to 354 and 358/1, khasra Nos. 914, 846, 1157, 1155 and 936 min measuring 14 kanals 10 marlas situated in village Rensari, HB No. 192, Teh. & Distt. Una (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is owned and possessed by them as donees vide gift deed dated 10.11.1975 executed by defendant No. 10 in favour and the defendants have no right or interest in the suit land nor they are in possession thereof any capacity whatsoever and the entries in the revenue papers showing them as Gair Marusis are false, fictitious, illegal and unwarranted and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 9 from taking forcible possession of the suit land and in the event of their succeeding in taking forcible possession of the suit land during the pendency of the suit, for recovery of possession. Case of the plaintiffs, as made out in the plaint, is that they are owners in possession of the suit laid by virtue of a gift made in their favour by defendant No. 10 arid defendants 1 to 9 have no right or interest in the suit land. However, in connivance with the revenue staff and Parkash Chand, MLA, they got the false, fictitious and unauthorised entries of possession made in their names qua the suit land -without the knowledge of the owners. Encouraged by the fictitious entries in their names, defendants No. 1 to 9 started threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land and did not admit the rights of the plaintiffs despite requests. Hence the suit.