ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Shubham Seth, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also, heard Mr. Sujit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The present appeals have been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 12.08.2009 in RSAs No.4041/2007 & 2552/2008, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Under the impugned order, the High Court upheld the decision dated 15.10.2007 of the Additional District Judge, Faridabad (‘First Appellate Court’), reversing the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Palwal (‘Trial Court’) order dated 28.02.2003, and thereby, decreed the Respondents’ suit and declared Narain Dass (Defendant No. 1/Dfdt. 1) as only a bhondedar but not the owner of the shamlatdeh land (land reserved & used for common purpose in villages). It was held that the Dfdt. No. 1 had been granted limited possessory rights, to the shamlatdeh land, in lieu of service rendered to the village temple and when he, as the bhondedar, ceased to render such service, the land would automatically revert back to the common village pool.

3. In the year 1982, Narain Dass (Dfdt. No. 1) initiated an earlier proceeding for declaration and occupancy rights, before Asst. Collector (Grade-I), Faridabad against the Gram Panchayat, Palwal. The Asst. Collector while disposing the said proceeding observed in the order dated 06.03.1986 that Narain Dass was entitled to hereditary rights, under Sections 5 & 8 of the Punjab Mujara Act, 1887 (also referred to as the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887) and the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953. This arises from the longstanding service of Narain Dass’ ancestors as mujaras (tenants) relating to the shamlatdeh land, for over 60 years. Additionally, it was held that the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

4. Subsequently, Narain Dass sold the shamlatdeh land to Lajja Ram & his sons (Defendant Nos. 2-5) through multiple sale deeds on 24.07.1987, 31.08.1987 and 07.06.1988, respectively.

5. Aggrieved by the above alienation of the common village land, the inhabitants of the village & biswedars (proprietors) of the land (‘Respondents’) filed the Suit No. 878/1996 for declaration, possession & injunction before the Civil Judge (Jr.), Palwal. However, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on 28.02.2003 as non-maintainable on the grounds that it was time-barred and also that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit. It was also held that the sale deeds transferring ownership rights from Narain Dass (Dfdt. 1) to Lajja Ram & sons (Dfdts. 2-5) were valid. The Court noted that Narain Dass, while serving as the bhondedar of the shamlatdeh land, continued to provide service to the landlord, and such service would be considered equivalent to payment of rent, thereby making Narain Dass also a tenant of the suit land.

6. Displeased with the Trial Court’s decision favouring Dfdt. No. 1, the Respondents approached the Additional District Judge, Faridabad by filing the Civil Appeal No. 17 on 01.04.2003. Simultaneously, Respondents (Defendant Nos. 5-12) also filed a separate Civil Appeal No. 25. The First Appellate Court with the common judgment dated 15.10.2007 decreed the suit for declaration, injunction, and possession of land measuring 33 kanals 5 marlas. Simultaneously, the Court negated Narain Dass’ (Dfdt. 1) claim, since he had limited right and was not competent to alienate the suit property. The Court also found that Dfdt. 1 had taken recourse to self-contradictory pleas asserting ownership rights as well as occupancy rights. Thus, the annulment of sale deeds to Dfdts No. 2-5 with a directive to restore the suit land possession to the common village pool was ordered.

7. The transferee Lajja Ram & sons (Dfdts. No. 2-5) then filed the RSA No. 4041 of 2007 and RSA No. 2552 of 2008 before the High Court. In the impugned order dated 12.08.2009, the High Court noted that the prior decree granted by the Asst. Collector against the Gram Panchayat could not have been u