R.S.A.No. 312 of 1990 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 312 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.2.2011 Puran and others ......Appellants Versus Balku and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.K.G.Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents **** SABINA, J. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that they were in possession of the suit property. However, in the revenue record, plaintiffs were described as tenants over the suit property and defendants by taking advantage of the said fact had moved an ejectment application before Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kaithal. The said application was allowed vide order dated 19.3.1981. The defendants had sought possession of the suit property from the plaintiffs on the basis of the said order. The plaintiffs had purchased R.S.A.No. 312 of 1990 (O&M) 2 3 biswas of land out of khasra No.205/ 1 min from Darshani Devi with corresponding share in the shamlat deh. Thus, the plaintiffs had become co-sharers in the suit property from 16.8.1982. Hence, the plaintiffs could not be dispossessed from the suit property. The defendants, in their written statement, averred that the proprietary body of village Bhansi Majra was the owner in possession of the suit property. The entries qua the suit property as shamlat deh were null and void. The plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property as tenants of the proprietary body. In view of the eviction order dated 19.3.1981 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kaithal, plaintiffs were liable to vacate the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs have become the co-sharers in the suit property as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the order dated 19.3.1981 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade Kaithal for eviction of the plaintiffs from the suit property is not executable as alleged? OPP 2-A. Whether the eviction of the plaintiffs from the suit land during the pendency of the suit is without process of law? OPP 2-B Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree for possession ? OPP 3. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD R.S.A.No. 312 of 1990 (O&M) 3 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by way of their own act and conduct as alleged ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands as alleged, if so to what effect ? OPD 9. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata? OPD 10. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 11. Whether the defendants are entitled for special costs under Section 35-A of CPC? If so how much? OPD 12. Whether the defendants violated any order of this Court if so to what effect ? OPP 13. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 8.2.1989, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.1989. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of R.S.A.No. 312 of 1990 (O&M) 4 the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the defendants were seeking possession of the suit land on the basis of the eviction order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Kaithal on 19.3.1981. Admittedly, the said order of eviction was upheld up to this Court. Although the plaintiffs had purchased 3 biswas of land from Darshani Devi but the said vendor was not a party to the ejectment proceedings. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs could not derive any benefit of the fact that they had purchased the share of Darshani Devi. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 23, 2011 anita