JASWANT SINGH Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una, vide which the appeal filed by the appellants (defendants before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Una was upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that the Taur Abadi measuring about 1 Kanal 1 Marla comprised in Khasra No. 94, Khewat No. 72, Khatauni No. 103, situated in Una Municipal Area near Bhai Jawahar Singh Market, Una, is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 3 and 4. This Abadi is marked by letters A B C D and is bounded as under:-

(3.) The suit was opposed by defendants No. 1 and 2 by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, locus standi and cause of action, improper valuation and verification, the plaintiffs having not approached the Court with clean hands, the suit being bad for misjoinder and non- joinder of parties and the plaintiffs being estopped from filing the suit by their acts and conduct. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that the site plan filed by the plaintiffs does not depict the correct spot position. The plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the Abadi. The defendants are in actual, physical and continuous possession of the Abadi. The land bearing Khasra No. 5065/2771 was converted into new Khasra No. 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94, which are owned and possessed by the defendants. The plaintiffs have no concern with them. The ancestor of the defendants and after him, the defendants are in possession of the Abadi. The sale deed propounded by the plaintiffs is a forged document and a result of sham transaction. The sale deed does not affect the rights of the defendants. The door of the defendants' house opens towards the abadi and the defendants are owners in possession of the abadi. The defendants were residing at Ludhiana at the time of settlement and there is no question of any connivance with the revenue staff. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.