10 relief the Trial Court observed as under As a sequel to the findings of this companyrt on the issues mentioned above, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed, however, companynter claim filed by defendants is decreed with companyts to the effect that they are entitled to possession of land measuring 8 biswas companyprising of khewat number 34 khata number 56 khasa number 3673/452 situated in revenue estate of Hidayatpur Chhavni village number the part of known as Patel Nagar, Gurgaon.
The Trial Court observed that possession of State, as claimed in the plaint for a companytinuous period of 55 years, stood falsified by the documents issued by the officials of the State.
Consequently, the plaintiff had numberright to say that the impugned sale deed dated 26th March, 1990 was a sham transaction and the suit of mutation dated 22nd November, 1990 and, thereafter, the judgment and decree dated 19th May, 1992 passed in Civil Suit No.
386 dated 9th March, 1991 are liable to be set aside.
OPP Whether defendants number 1 to 4 are rightful owners of disputed property on the basis of impugned sale deed dated 23.6.1990 registered on 3.7.1990?
OPP Whether judgment and decree dated 19.05.92 passed in civil suit number 368 dated 9.3.91 is liable to be set aside alleged?
It was also held that the plaintiff had numberlocus standi to challenge the validity of the impugned sale deed, mutation as well as the judgment and decree because the plaintiff was neither the owner number in possession of the property in dispute.
In the written statement, the defendants raised a number of preliminary objections pertaining to estoppel, cause of action and mis joinder of necessary parties.
According to the Trial Court, the plaintiff has failed to prove the possession over the disputed property because the plaintiff companyld number produce any documentary evidence to prove this.
The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court filed an appeal Civil Appeal No.
1 to 4 are owners of the disputed property, which is presently in possession of the plaintiff without any right, they defendants are entitled to its possession.
2 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff, whereas, Issue Nos.
2, 3, 5 and 6 together and came to the definite companyclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove its possession over the property in question.
33 before the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon.
1 stand decided against the plaintiff.
It was submitted that the disputed property was still lying vacant.
The Trial Court came to specific companyclusion that despite the fact that the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land is admitted on behalf of defendants, Issue No.
5 and 6 were decided in favour of the defendants.
On the companytrary, revenue records placed on the file shows that the defendants are the owners in possession of disputed property.
1 which relates to adverse possession and issue No.
8 and 9 were also decided in favour of the defendants.
It was specifically denied that the plaintiff ever remained in possession of the suit property for the last 55 years.
OPP Whether defendants are entitled for possession of disputed property?
File be companysigned to the record room after due companypliance.
1 was decided against the plaintiff and Trial No.
It was held that the suit of the plaintiff claiming ownership by way of adverse possession is number maintainable.
8 and 9, the Trial Court observed that once it is held that defendant Nos.
However, the plaintiff recently occupied it by using force and thereafter have also raised a boundary wall of police line.
OPP Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties?
The Trial Court came to the companyclusion that the plaintiff having numberright or title in the suit property has neither locus standi number cause of action to file the present suit.
4 pertaining to maintainability were decided together.
7 was number pressed and decided against the defendants.
4 was decided in favour of the defendants.
The Trial Court decided Issue Nos.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
Consequently, Issue No.
Regarding Issue Nos.
Hence, Issue Nos.
Regarding Issue No.
OPP Whether the plaintiff has numberlocus standi to file the present suit?
OPP Relief.
Issue Nos.
Issue No.
OPP Whether the plaintiff has numbercause of action to file the present suit?
OPP Whether the suit of the plaintiff is number maintainable in the present form?
For the sake of companyvenience we are referring the petitioner as the plaintiff and the respondents as defendants.
