Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.: - Defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction as consequential relief.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking decree for declaration to the effect that defendants have no right, title or interest in the land measuring 1 Kanal 7 Marlas be passed besides declaring gift deeds in favour of defendants No.1 to 9 not binding upon the plaintiffs and other inhabitants and the same be declared as null and void. Mandatory injunction has also been sought for removal of encroachment by the defendants.

3. Plaintiffs alleged that in the year 1993, defendant No.10 was the Sarpanch. In a scheme promulgated by State of Hayana to provide plot to homeless and landless persons, plots were given to those persons who were not eligible. The plots were given to defendants No.1 to 9, who are near relatives of defendant No.10 by misusing the policy of the Government. Gift deeds were made in favour of the defendants No.1 to 9 and others. The land meant for Kohlu was given by way of gift deed and the defendants raised construction over the site of Kohlu which was meant for inhabitants for common purposes in the village.

4. On 30.03.2008, the land was demarcated by the Kanungo and the factum of land of Kohlu came to the notice. Nature of the land was changed. The allotments were found to be made in favour of brothers and near relatives of defendant No.10.

5. Plaintiffs alleged that gift deed No.1100 showed many beneficiaries. The details of defendants No.1 to 9 with reference to gift deed No.1100 has been tabulated in para No.2 of the trial Court judgment.

6. After the demarcation, the defendants No.1 to 9 tried to raise construction over the site in question illegally and forcibly, but the same was averted due to timely intervention of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers of the land. Plaintiffs claimed that they were also biswedars of the village and they had also contributed to the land for common purpose of the village at the time of consolidation. Therefore, they have every right, title or interest in the present suit land and the undue benefit has been given to the defendants No.1 to 9 on account of political influence.

7. Defendants have contested the suit by claiming that the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land which was lawfully gifted to them under the Scheme of Haryana Government for construction of residential houses. The defendants contested the suit on other grounds too.

8. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration to the effect that defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land as described in para no.1 of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration to the effect that the gift deeds No.1100 in favour of defendants No.1 to 9 in respect of the suit property were not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs and other inhabitants of the village concerned and do not confer any right, title or interest in the defendants No.1 to 9?OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction for removing the encroachment over the suit land either by way of further raising construction over the same or otherwise? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

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

6. Whether the plaintiffs have estopped to file the present suit by their own and conduct? OPD

7. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

8. Relief.”

9. Both the parties led their respective evidence on the aforesaid issues to prove their case.

10. Trial Court decreed the suit and the same affirmed by the lower Appellate Court as well.

11. Appellants have framed following questions of law in para No.2 of the grounds of appeal:-

“i. Wh