ORDER :

1. This appeal is at the instance of Defendants against the judgment and decree passed by learned Single Judge in Respondents-Plaintiffs' Regular Second Appeal No. 2936 of 1979, decided on 14. 02. 2003 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

2. The Respondents-Plaintiffs' had filed a suit for possession, but was dismissed by the Trial Court. It was carried to the Appellate Court, which also dismissed the same, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Plaintiffs filed the aforesaid Second Appeal before the High Court, which was allowed vide impugned Judgment, hence, this Appeal by Appellants-Defendants.

3. Thumbnail sketch of the facts is mentioned hereinbelow:-

4. Parties shall now be referred to as described in the plaint i. e. Plaintiffs and Defendants.

5. Sadhu Singh was the owner of land measuring 6 Kanal 10 Marla in Khasra No. 679 situated in village Bija. By a registered deed of sale executed by him on 09. 12. 1963, he sold 17 marlas of land to Narain Singh, who took possession of the land so purchased by him. Sadhu Singh sold 1 bigha (equivalent to 1 Kanal and 13? marlas) of land of the same Khasra No. jointly to Harbhajan Kaur and Hardial Kaur on 04. 02. 1964 by executing another sale deed in their favour. On 19. 02. 1969, out of the same Khasra, Sadhu Singh mortgaged land in favour of the original Defendants being Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 and handed over possession of the same to them. Plaintiffs - Dalip Singh(D) - husband of Hardial Kaur and Harbans Singh - son of Hardial Kaur jointly filed a suit before the learned Trial Court for possession of agricultural land measuring 1 Kanal and 13? Marlas of the aforesaid Khasra against original defendants - Sadhu Singh, Harchand Singh, Amar Singh, Kapoor Singh and Dalbir Singh. They also claimed removal of structure, the foundation of which was laid by Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 without the Plaintiffs' knowledge and consent and without any right, title or interest. As mentioned hereinabove, Plaintiffs claimed title to the same on account of the sale deed having been executed in their favour on 4. 2. 1964. Smt. Hardial Kaur, purchaser of = of the share of agricultural land, had died about six years before the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 3 are the legal heirs of said Smt. Hardial Kaur.

6. It has further been mentioned in the plaint by Plaintiffs that a month before filing of the suit on 11. 09. 1975, the Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 - Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 had illegally and forcibly, without any right, title or interest, tried to take possession of the land of the Respondents- Plaintiffs in their absence and started laying foundation.

7. It has further been averred that Defendant no. 1 had already sold the land to the Plaintiffs, hence, he had no right to sell the same land to Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Even if such a sale deed had been executed in their favour, it will not confer any right, title or interest on them. In lieu of this, they prayed that a decree for the removal of the structure/super-structure be passed in Plaintiffs' favour and against the Appellants-Defendants.

8. This suit was filed in the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Samrala. On summons being issued to the Defendants, Defendant no. 1 filed his written statement and Defendant nos. 2 to 5 filed their separate written statement. Apart from denial in toto of the plaint allegations, they averred that Plaintiffs are estopped by their own acts and conduct as they filed the present suit after so many years. It was also contended that Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 were in the possession of the land purchased by them and they have been cultivating the same from the date of execution of the sale deeds. They also contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as Narain Singh, who was a necessary party to the suit, was not impleaded. Defendant nos. 2 to 5 had additionally submitted that Plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 had no locus