Mr. Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, J.:- CM-14360 and 14362-C-2015

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and for the reasons recorded in the Civil Misc. applications, same are allowed. Amended grounds of appeal are taken on record.

RSA No. 581 of 2013 (O&M)

2. This regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala whereby suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for possession has been decreed, as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala whereby appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant has been dismissed.

3. For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Court of first instance.

4. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the defendant on the ground that Harbans Kaur, wife of the plaintiff, was owner in possession of the land in dispute. She died on 01.04.1994. After her death, plaintiff inherited the land of his wife and became owner in possession of the same. On 15.06.1996, taking benefit of the old age of the plaintiff, defendant took forcible possession of the land in his absence. The defendant without notice to the plaintiff and with malafide intention and in connivance with revenue officials got corrected khasra girdwari of the suit land in his name, alleging himself to be owner of the suit land. Plaintiff requested the defendant to hand over possession, but he refused to do the same. Hence, suit was filed.

5. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement along with counter claim taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it is averred that during her life time, Harbans Kaur handed over possession of the land to the defendant as owner in the presence of Ravi Singh son of Nand Singh and Sher Singh son of Inder Singh in the year 1990 and since then, defendant is owner in possession of the same. Later on, the ownership of the suit land was transferred to the name of the Government of Punjab. Harbans Kaur has no right or title in the suit land.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the property in dispute as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff has no concern with the property in dispute? OPD

4. Whether the mutation no. 9114/A sanctioned, in favour of plaintiff is null and void and is not binding upon the rights of defendant? OPD

5. Whether defendant is entitled for counter claim, as prayed for? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time of limitation? OPD

9. Whether the defendant is entitled for special compensatory costs u/s 35A CPC? OPD

10. Relief.?

7. The Court of first instance, after perusal of the evidence led by the parties, decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendant vide judgment and decree dated 14.09.2011. Against that, defendant preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2012. Hence, this second appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that substantial questions of law formulated in para no. 4 of the amended grounds of appeal, arise for consideration in this second appeal, which read as under:-

“i) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the lea