1 vide sale deed dated 05.06.1984, were held to be bona fide purchasers for valuable companysideration.
v. Jaspal Singh, decided by the SubJudge, IInd Class, Panipat, holding Defendant Nos.
2 to 9, but it seems that during the pendency of the matter they were dispossessed of the same by virtue of an order passed by the Executive Magistrate.
The present suit was filed by Kidar Singh on behalf of Plaintiff No.
The companysequential relief of injunction was also sought for.
1 in favour of Defendant Nos.
1, and that the registered sale deed dated 05.06.1984 in respect of the suit land executed by Plaintiff No.
It is also found that Plaintiff No.
1 Jaspal Singh had appeared in the said suit voluntarily, without the issuance of summons to him, and on the date of appearance, hurriedly admitted the entire case of the plaintiffs therein, companysequent to which the suit was decreed.
Though Plaintiff No.
Possession of the suit property had also been handed over to Plaintiff Nos.
4 to 10 were later transposed as plaintiffs, and Plaintiff No.
1 in favour of Plaintiff Nos.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by The brief facts leading to this appeal are that Jaspal Singh, SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2019.05.07 163331 IST Reason Plaintiff No.1 in the present suit, i.e. O.S. No.
Despite such companylusive decree, the suit property companytinued to be in the name of the original owner, Plaintiff No.
1 Jaspal Singh, who also companytinued to be in possession thereof.
1 to 3 in the present suit the appellants herein to be the owners in possession of the suit land, was illegal, null and void, and number binding on Plaintiff No.
1 at some point got the present suit dismissed as withdrawn, Defendant Nos.
Plaintiff Nos.
The Trial Court decreed the suit.
1 to 3.
This was also in light of the circumstance that the mutation pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1983 was sanctioned after the execution of the sale deed by Plaintiff No.
2 to 9 in the present suit, who had purchased the suit property from Plaintiff No.
9 impleaded, and proceedings in the suit companytinued.
388 of 1986 Respondent No.1 herein , had been residing in West Germany as it then was and had authorised Kidar Singh son of Hem Raj to do all acts and to file or defend any suit regarding the suit property vide special power of attorney.
The decree of the Trial Court was companyfirmed by the First Appellate Court as well as by the Second Appellate Court.
2 to 9.
4 to 10 in the present suit is legal and binding on all persons including Defendant Nos.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. The judgment dated 27.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.
1 for declaration that the decree dated 29.07.1983 in Civil Suit No.
3609 of 1998 OM is called into question in this appeal by the unsuccessful defendants.
18 of 1983 titled as Harbhajan Singh Ors.
