Sabina, J.

1. Vide this judgment, RSA Nos. 134 and 135 of 2003 would be disposed of as the civil suits, out of which the said appeals had arisen, were consolidated and were disposed of vide common judgment.

2. Plaintiffs Santokh Singh etc. filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful cultivating possession. Defendants Darshan Singh etc. also filed a suit against them for declaration. Vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Jalandhar, the suit filed by Santokh Singh etc. was decreed, whereas, the suit filed by Darshan Singh etc. was dismissed. In appeals, the findings of the trial Court were reversed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2002 . The suit filed by Santokh Singh etc. was dismissed, whereas, suit filed by Darshan Singh etc. was decreed. Hence, the present appeals.

3. Brief facts of suit No. 203/96 filed by Santokh Singh etc., as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under :-

"2. The land measuring 15K-12M as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint is owned jointly by the parties to the suit and others. The plaintiffs have 2K-9M land in i.e. 1 Kanal out of khasra No. 45//8, 10 khabit out of khasra No. 45//6 min and 19 marlas out of khasra No. 45//6 min. That the defendants No. 1 and 2 are owners of 1 kanal land out of khasra No. 45/B and defendant No. 8 is in possession of 1 kanal area as mortgage out of khasra No. 45//6 min and 45//6 min. That defendants are threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the land under the cultivating possession of the plaintiffs which is 2K-9M. The defendants were requested not to do so but they refused, hence, this suit.

3. On notice, defendant No. 1 appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit. It is denied that plaintiff is owner of 2K-9M of land out of the total land. It is also denied that the plaintiff has got any right, or interest in the suit land. It is contended that the defendants are absolute owner of the suit properties and part of the suit property is in possession of the plaintiffs. It is further contended that the defendants being in actual physical possession of the total land, the question of dispossessing the plaintiffs does not arise. All other allegations are denied. It is prayed that the suit be dismissed. Defendants No. 2 and 3 did not appear to contest the suit and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.95 passed by my learned predecessor.

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

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in joint possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 45//8, fully described in the head note of the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

4. Relief. "

5. However, issue No. 1 was later on amended vide order dated 16.12.98 and was reframed as under :-

Issue No. 1 :- " Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in joint possession of the land to the extent of 2 kanal 9 marlas in the land comprised in Khasra No. 45//8, 45//6 min and 45//5 min of Khewat No. 365. Khatauni No. 519, 523 and 524 as detailed in the head note of the plaint ? OPP. In brief, the facts of suit No. 173/96 filed by Darshan Singh etc., as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 6 to 8 of its judgment, are as under :-

"6. Charna defendant had a share to the extent of 10K-1M in the suit land. He sold 9K-6M from his share from time to time which ultimately came to the plaintiff through registered sale deeds in their favour. As such, the plaintiffs acquired 9K-6M of land from the share of Charna, defendant in the suit property. Charna was left with only 15 marlas of share in the suit property. That the sale by Charna from his share is duly reflected in the revenue record. The plaintiffs also purchased land from othe