Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.: - The present appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants who are dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 23.04.1986 wherein the lower appellate Court at Rohtak had allowed the appeal of the unsuccessful plaintiff-respondents and passed a decree of possession in their favour.

2. The necessary facts which emanate from the facts are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for possession of 48 kanals as per Jamabandi of the year 1977-78 of Village Bhalot on the ground that one Kanwar Shamsher Singh, retired IG of Police was the owner of the land and residing outside Village Bhalot and had appointed Om Parkash, son of Samundar Singh as his Power of Attorney to deal with the property. It was alleged that on the strength of the said Power of Attorney, a registered mortgage deed dated 14.11.1980 was executed for a sum of Rs.12,000/- and possession of the land had been taken as mortgagee’s and the plaintiff-respondents were in possession of the suit land. The defendant-appellants were interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondents/mortgagees who accordingly filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Sr.Sub-Judge, Rohtak who had granted ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant-appellants to interfere in the property of the suit land and status quo order was passed on 01.10.1981. However, the defendant-appellants took forceable possession of the suit land on 16.10.1981 when the plaintiff-respondents were not in the village and accordingly, the suit for permanent injunction was withdrawn. The defendant-appellants were asked many times to hand over the possession of the suit land but they failed to do the needful and had finally refused to hand-over the possession of the suit land which had led to the filing of the suit in question. The said suit was resisted by filing written statement on the ground that the plaintiff-respondents have no locus standi to file the suit, it was barred by the principles of res judicata, not maintainable under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. and bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. It is further contended that Kanwar Shamsher Singh was still the owner of the agricultural land and he had never appointed Om Parkash as his Power of Attorney. It was alleged that Om Parkash, the Power of Attorney was the real brother of the plaintiff-respondents and he, under the influence of his father, Samundar Singh was doing all the illegal acts. The plaintiff-respondents had never been in possession of the suit property and no mortgage deed was ever executed and registered with regard to the suit land and Om Parkash had no power to mortgage the suit land and the defendant-appellants were owners of the agricultural property for the last 15 years. Reference was also made to a civil suit filed by Samundar Singh, father of the plaintiff-respondents in which injunction had been granted to Samundar Singh. However, the same had been set aside by the Addl.District Judge, Rohtak in his decision dated 01.05.1980. The earlier suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for permanent injunction and the status quo orders passed in the said litigation were admitted.

3. Replication was filed by the plaintiff-respondents in which they denied that they were not competent to bring the suit and also the fact that the suit was barred by principles of res judicata since there was no decision on merits between the parties. Accordingly, the plea in the suit was reiterated and the written statement was denied. On the basis of the said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are mortgagees of the land in dispute? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the Order 23 Rule 1 of the C.P.C.? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties? O