JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The appellants are the defendants, who after having lost before both the learned courts below, have filed the instant second appeal.

2. The parties shall be referred to as the “plaintiffs” and “defendants”.

3. Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendants on the ground that they were the owners in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata No. 53 min, Khatauni No. 56 min, Khasra No.655/453, measuring 1 Kanal 2 Marlas, situated in Tikka Tikkar, Mauza Mehalta, Tehsil and District Hamirpur. It was claimed that the plaintiffs were poor and illiterate ladies and defendant No.1, who was private medical practitioner, after taking advantage of this fact was trying to dispossess them forcibly from the suit land. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement taking therein preliminary objections regarding cause of action, locus standi, maintainability, valuation and lastly that the defendants had become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. On merits, it was denied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land. It was claimed that defendant No.1 had constructed his house and cattle shed over the suit land in the year 1967 and his possession over the suit land was continuous, un-interrupted, hostile and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and had become owners of the suit land by eflux of time. It was further claimed that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs Mahantu had executed an agreement to sell the suit land with the defendants for a consideration of Rs.5000/- on 15.10.1990 and since then they were in possession of the suit land and that being so, the plaintiffs were estopped from filing the suit by their own acts and conduct.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court on 11.10.1993 framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct, as alleged? OPD

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD

4. Whether the defendants are owners of the suit land and have become owners thereof by way of adverse possession? OPD

5. Relief.

6. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.6.1996 allowed the suit by passing decree for mandatory injunction by way of demolition of superstructure raised over the suit land by the defendants and further decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants thereby permanently restraining the defendants from causing any sort of interference over the suit land was also passed. The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.2004 leading to the filing of the present appeal.

7. On 23.3.2006 the instant appeal came to be admitted on following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the suit was not valued correctly for the purpose of court fee and therefore, it should not have been tried on merits?

2. Whether any prejudice has been caused to the appellant/defendant on account of non-framing of a specific issue pertaining to his plea that there had been an engagement to sell, executed in his favour by the father of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/respondents?

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record carefully.

Substantial Question of Law No.1

9. The question as formulated is only academic because even if it is assumed that the value of property is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned trial Court, the same will have no bearing on the validity of the judgment and decree passed by it, more particularly when the defendants have failed to question