GANGS RAM (DECEASED) Vs. BATTNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed on January 22, 1979 by District Judge, Hamirpur and Una Districts at Una, dismissing their appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on September 13, 1977, by Sub -Judge III Class, Una, dismissing their suit.

(2.) Ganga Ram, appellant No. 1, and Mangal predecessor -in -interest of appellants No. 2 to 6 on October 17, 1974 filed a suit for grant of decree for injunction restraining the defendants -respondents from causing any interference in their possession over the suit property, which they claimed to have been in their occupation as tenant under various owners It was averred by them that defendants, who had purchased land to the extent of 11 marlas only from some of the owners had merely stepped into the shoes of the owners and had no right to cause any interference with their possession The suit was resisted by the defendants by denying that there existed any relationship of landlord and tenant or that plaintiffs were ever in occupation of the property. The defendants pleaded that they had rightly purchased 11 marlas of land and were actually put in possession thereof and now they had converted the land as Abadi and constructed houses thereon and were residing therein. It was further stated by the defendants in the written statement that plaintiffs had also by purchase of fraction of share in the property became co -owners in the entire Khata.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that they were neither the tenants nor were ever in occupation of the suit property. Both the plaintiffs preferred appeal During the pendency of the appeal, Mangal plaintiff appellant died and his legal representatives, namely, appellants No. 2 to 6 were brought on record before the lower appellate Court. The appeal was dismissed by holding that the appellants were co -sharers in the suit property alongwith respondents and as respondents were entered in the revenue records in possession of 11 marlas of land, therefore, the suit for grant of decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was not maintainable. The appellants have now preferred the present Second Appeal before this Court.