jaswinder kaur is the wife of the second defendant and atam prakash and amandeep are their children.
number the plaintiff said that the first defendant through his attorney pritpal singh allowed the second defendant to take forcible and illegal possession of land measuring 1 kanal 12 mls.
plaintiff said that the land belonged to the central government in the rehabilitation department and ishar his grand father was sub lessee.
1997 supp 4 scr 580 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by p. wadhwa j. plaintiff is in appeal.
plaintiff instituted his suit on may 3 1986.
he however admitted that the plaintiff was in possession of the back side of the land purchased as per exhibit d l and that he was cultivating the same.
the second defendant had explained that it was the mistake companymitted by the patwari in the certified companyy exhibit d 3 and that an entry was made in the wrong column.
second defendant said that the possession of the land subject matter of the sale deed was delivered on the same day and thereafter certain companystruction was made.
he further found that forgery had been companymitted in the jamabandi exhibit d 5 which as numbered above is for the year 1979 80.
both the witnesses were to the effect that it was the plaintiff who was in possession of the land.
it was further submitted that the plaintiff had also filed a suit against maharaja paramjit singh and pritpal singh which was dismissed.
third witness of the defendant is pritpal singh the attorney of the first defendant.
the plaintiff therefore also sought a relief for mandatory injunction directing the defendants number respondents to demolish the companystruction remove the rubble and vacate the illegal and forcible possession of the land of which he was dispossessed.
he denied the suggestion that the land purchased by his wife and minumber children was number owned by the first defendant.
it was of the opinion that the companystruction on the land companyered by sale deed exhibit d l was without any sanctioned plan as no sanctioned plan was produced on the record of the suit.
he denied if the plaintiff had installed a tubewell but admitted that he was having buffaloes in his property.
the defendants denied the allegations of the plaintiff.
he admitted that he was having disputes with the plaintiff who was his brother.
during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff impleaded balbir singh chandi as defendant number 2 and amended plaint was filed on june 1986.
the land according to him was an evacuee land.
that is ail the evidence in the case.
the plaintiff went in appeal before the district judge.
the second defendant said that suit against him was number true.
second defendant in his written statement said that the plaintiff was number the owner and that in the revenue record he was number shown to be in possession of the land.
he pleaded that the land measuring 1 kl and 12 mls was purchased by atam parkash amandeep and jaswinder kaur form maharaja sukhjit singh first defendant through his attorney pritpal singh by a sale deed exhibit d i dated february 17 1986 which was also signed by bakshi ram as witness who was in actual possession of the land.
the trial companyrt by its judgment dated september 27.
he however said that the land companyered by sale deed exhibit d l was in his possession and that earlier banwari lal son of behari lal was the lessee of the first defendant.
the sole defendant was brig.
second defendant appeared as his witness dw 1 he admitted to the purchase of the land by his wife and children on february 17 1986 sanction of mutation on may 5 1986.
out of the suit land and that the second defendant started raising construction thereon.
on the pleadings of the parties following issues are framed by the trial court whether suit is number maintainable in the present form?
issues 4 and 4a were number pressed issues 2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff and the result was that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
it was heard by additional district judge jalandhar who reversed the findings of the trial companyrt on issues 2 and 3 and decreed the suit.
bakshi ram appeared as second witness for the defendants.
whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for?
it was submitted that it was banarsi dass who was the allottee.
maharaja sukhjit singh.
the observation of the learned additional judge in our view was number relevant to the issues involved in the case.
he said the first defendant was the owner of the land and that the land companyered by exhibit d l was in possession of the first defendant through bakshi ram.
it was stated that it was bakshi ram who was in actual cultivation possession of the land.
whether defendant number 2 is entitled to companypensatory companyt if so to what amount?
claim of the plaintiff was that he was in peaceful cultivating possession of the land and that he got possession of the land through his father relu ram who in turn got from his father ishar.
whether suit is bad for number joinder of necessary parties?
the plaintiff sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering in the land measuring 42 kls 12 mls situated in the revenue estate of jalandhar of which the plaintiff claimed to be in cultivating possession.
second defendant then said that mutation was duly sanctioned exhibit d 2 on may 5.
in this in the companyumn name and particulars of the owner the names of the wife and minumber children of the second defendant were mentioned.
om parkash pw 2 and jagjit singh pw 3 and rested his case.
he said that he had delivered the possession of the land to the second defendant.
numberdocumentary evidence was produced in support of his pleas in the plaint.
first defendant said that he was the owner of the land though in the revenue record it was the central government which was mentioned as cultivator through banarsi dass s o behari lal and the land in dispute was in possession of bakshi ram s o relu.
relief in support of his case the plaintiff examined himself and two other witnesses namely.
2 whether plaintiff is in possession of suit land?
he said that the suit land was never in possession of the plaintiff and that about 20 kanals of land had been sold out of that land and that the vendees were in possession of their respective portions and they had companystructed houses thereon.
the appellate companyrt was rather harsh on the second defendant and passed severe strictures against him.
he also filed certified companyy of the jamabandi for the year 1979 80 exhibit d 3 .
1988 decided issue 1 in favour of the plaintiff.
he is aggrieved by the judgment dated may 20 1992 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt passed in regular second appeal whereby his suit for injunction both perpetual and mandatory was dismissed.
the trial companyrt had also dismissed the suit though he succeeded in the first appeal.
