The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Gram Panchayat to authorize a natural person to institute a suit on its behalf and the applicability of the relevant Rules in force at the time of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by the appellant/defendant against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration and injunction came to be allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Gram Panchayat through respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that it was owner in possession of the land measuring 0-00-63 sq.mtrs. comprised in Khewat No. 91, Khatauni No. 240, Khasra No. 861/1, 862, 863 and 864 as entered in Nakal Misal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid Saini for the year 1989-90 situated in Village Hathlon, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, Himachal Pradesh and the entry in the revenue records in favour of the appellant and proforma respondents herein was against law and ineffective qua the right, title and interest of the plaintiff. It was further averred that the Well was situated over the suit land which was in a dilapidated condition and when the respondent tried to repair the same, the appellant started to interfere, compelling the plaintiffs to institute the instant suit.

3. The suit was resisted and contested by the appellant by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi, estoppel and plaintiff/respondent having no cause of action were taken. Further it was averred that the suit was hit by the provisions of Section 11 CPC as the findings of the Tehsildar (Settlement) dated 26.12.1992 in case No.337 of 1992 had attained finality wherein it was held that the Well was constructed by the appellant being 'gair marusi tenant' and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to repair and maintain the said Well as it was in the possession of the appellant since the time immemorial in the capacity of 'gair marusi'. On such defence, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 3.9.1999:

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and the entries in favour of the defendant in possession are wrong, illegal, null and void? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether the suit is barred U/S 11 of CPC? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act and conduct? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

8. Relief.

5. The learned trial Court after recording and evaluating the evidence decreed the suit by holding the plaintiff to be the owner in possession of the suit land and the entry in the name of the appellant/defendants recording them in possession of the property as being wrong and illegal. The learned trial Court also passed a decree for injunction restraining the defendants/appellant from interfering in the repair and maintenance of the suit land and Well in question. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendant/appellant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Una, who vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2003 dismissed the same.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.4.2003 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court, the appellant/defendant has come in second appeal before this Court.

7. On 19.7.2004, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the Courts below have wrongly interpreted the legal position when they held that respondents No. 2 and 3 were competent to institute the suit on behalf of Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha i.e. respondent No. 1.? I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

8. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant that respondents No. 2 and 3 w