The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the rights of bona fide purchasers and the validity of property ownership based on a valid sale deed and possession.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - Present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below vide which suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction has been ordered to be decreed.

2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the plea that they are permanent residents of village Balaur, Tehsil Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that prior to the independence the land comprised in Khewat No. 136/139, Khatoni No. 327, Khasra No. 639, and land measuring 3 bighas 12 biswas pukhta was under the ownership of shamlat Pana Nashiyan @ 5 biswa and was under the tenancy of Attaulla son of Azemmuddin, resident of Bahadurgarh as gair marusi. The land was cultivated by Sohan son of Azemmudin as tenant. After the partition of the contrary (country ?) Attaulla son of Azemmudin shifted to Pakistan. The land was recorded on the basis of biswardari rights in favour of Custodian Department and consequently Custodian Department allotted the land bearing khasra No. 638/1 (13-12) biswas and 639/2(0-1) biswa and allotted to Nebh Raj son of Dalu Ram and Nemat Rai under allotment Nos. 92/38/1 and 92/38/2, respectively. The land was inherited by their sons namely Heera Nand and Chakan Lal. The mutation was sanctioned in their favour. Heera Nand and Chakan Lal sold the allotted land in favour of Pehlad Singh, Surat Singh and Ranjit Singh vide sale-deed bearing No. 161/141, Khatoni No. 426, Khasra No. 639 min measuring 3 bighas 12 biswas pukhta. Pehlad Singh, Surat Singh and Ranjeet Singh sons of Sohan become owners and Sohan son of Gurdial cultivated the land as gair marusi who was father of the vendees. Nemat Rai son of Dalu Ram sold the land comprised in khewat No. 161 Khata No. 427, Khasra No. 639 min on 3.8.1959 through registered sale-deed. Land measuring 0-12 biswas was deducted as a pukhta road and thus, all vendees claimed to have become the owners in possession of the land after the death of Sohan Lal. However, many mutations have been inserted in the jamabandi but the same had no effect on the suit land, in any manner, except the area measuring 0-12 Biswas which was used for Pukhta road. Consequently, the plaintiffs claimed that after the death of Sohan Lal, Pehlad Singh, Surat Singh plaintiffs have inherited the suit land and they are the owners in possession of the suit land measuring 2 bighas 13 biswas because land used for old path is under the cultivation in place of land used for pukhta road. However, entries in the revenue record was effected in view of the Govt. Notification No. HLA P-1999-D dated 9.2.1990 and the land of the plaintiffs was mutated in favour of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh. On the basis of said mutation land stood under the ownership of Panna 5 biswa and same has affected the legal rights of the plaintiffs. Consequently, it was claimed that the revenue entries are wrong and did not depict the correct picture.

3. The suit was contested. It was averred that the plaintiffs were estopped from filing the suit; the suit was bad for non-compliance of notice under Section 53 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and it was also claimed that the civil court has no jurisdiction. It was further claimed that the suit was filed to harass the answering defendants and to save his ejectment. It was also claimed that the suit is barred by limitation. On merit while admitting that the land was under the ownership of Panna Nashiyan alias five biswa. The other averments made in the plaint were denied. It is also pleaded that the land was vested in the Custodian Department. It was also claimed that the land never came under the ownership of Custodian. The allotment of land to Nebh Raj and Nemat Rai was also disputed. It was claimed that if there was any such allotment it was wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh. It was also c