The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper exercise of powers by the lower Appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 22 CPC and the need for the matter to be revisited for adjudication afresh.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. The appellants-plaintiffs are in regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2000 of the lower Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.05.1999 of the trial Court granting declaration against the defendants of ownership of the suit land except the share of Dulia, has been set aside, in other words, the lower Appellate Court in an appeal preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs against non-granting of declaration qua share of Dulia, reversed the findings of the trial Court.

2. Succinctly, the facts as enumerated from the pleadings of the parties are that the appellants-plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration against Gram Panchayat/respondent that they had been in cultivating possession of the land measuring 32 kanals comprised in khewat No.258 min Khata No.339, 340, 401 rect. and killa No.29/16-17-25-24 situated at Village Joshi Chauhan Tehsil and District Sonepat, for the last 100 years through their predecessors-in-interest as Basharesh Parta Malkan Billa Malkana. During the consolidation proceedings, the aforementioned land was allocated khasra numbers and the same allotted to the plaintiffs as tenants. The plaintiffs and predecessors-in-interest had been cultivating the land after consolidation, but the rate of rent was never raised during all this period. There was an agreement between the parties and the predecessors-in-interest at the inception of tenancy with a understanding that the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest would never be ejected. As per local customs and the provisions of Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, the plaintiffs had acquired the right of ownership and occupancy tenants in view of the provisions of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (in short 'the 1953 Act'). Hence, the suit.

3. The aforementioned suit was contested by the defendant with regard to the maintainability of the suit, much less, jurisdiction of the Civil Court and on merits, it was averred that the plaintiffs had been in unauthorized occupation of the land which possessed few months before filing of the suit, in other words, long and settled possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest had emphatically been denied. Even the alleged agreement between the plaintiffs and the Gram Panchayat was also denied. The entries of revenue record in favour of the plaintiffs were said to be wrong and in collusion with the revenue Department.

4. Since the parties are at variance, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether plaintiffs have become owners in possession on the ground taken in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi nor have any cause of action? OPD

4. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 205 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994? OPD

5. Relief.

5. The plaintiffs in support of their case examined Nage Ram one of the plaintiffs as PW1 and tendered in evidence certain documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17), on the other hand, the defendant examined Ombir as DW-1 and tendered in evidence documents (Ex.D1 and Ex.D-2)

6. The trial Court on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence brought on record as well as by noticing the provisions of 1953 Act found that the plaintiffs had been in long and settled possession, therefore, they had acquired the occupancy rights in the suit property to the extent of the share of Tulsi, Shera and Nathu, but declined to grant relief qua the share of Dulia. The objection of maintainability of the suit taken by the Gram Panchayat/respondent was also rejected. The appellants-plaintiffs filed the appeal bearing No.103 of 1999 against declining of the occupancy rights qua share of Dulia and the lower Appellate Court while taking into consideration the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, set aside the judgment and decree of the