The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961, allowed non-proprietors to retain possession of land under a house, influencing the court's decision in the property dispute.

JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J. - This order of mine shall dispose of the aforementioned two regular second appeals and one revision petition.

2. Rsa No.343 of 1985 titled as "Phul Singh (deceased) through LRs and Others V/s Ram Dei and Others" has been preferred by the defendants, arising out of civil suit No.140 of 1982, which was decreed by the trial Court by negating the plea of the defendants of having become owner by way of adverse possession, however, in appeal, the lower Appellate Court rendered the finding on Issue No.8A and 8-B by relying upon the provisions of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (in short 'the 1961 Act'), as applicable to Haryana and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court viz-a-viz the possession of the vacant land, but declined the relief with regard to the constructed portion. It is, in these circumstances, the other regular second appeal bearing RSA No.510 of 1985 titled as "Ram Dei and Others V/s Phul Singh (deceased) through LRs and Others" has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

3. Cr No.1538 of 1987 has also been preferred by Phul Singh (deceased) through LRs and Others, the defendants in the aforementioned suit, against the order dated 17.02.1984, dismissing the civil miscellaneous application No.4/6 of 1983 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order dated 18.07.1978, whereby the suit claiming declaration with consequential relief of possession in alternative, which was dismissed on 08.02.1966, but in second appeal, the matter was remitted to the trial Court and after remand, it was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.1978 by invoking the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. The appeal preferred against dismissal of the application before the District Judge was also dismissed vide order dated 23.01.1987.

4. Since the parties to the lis in all the aforementioned cases, much less, the properties, in dispute, are identical, therefore, all the case are being decided by a common judgment.

5. Plaintiffs instituted the aforementioned suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 7 bighas 12 biswas comprised in Khewat No.267 Khatauni No.553 to 555, Khasra Nos.1819 to 1828 and 1830 to 1837 situated in Village Beri Khas, as per the jamabandi for the year 1958- 59 and in exchange after consolidation of holdings, new Nos. Rectangle No.71 Killa No.26 (1-6), 27 (1-12), 28(0-13), 29 (0-8), 30 (0-6), 31 (0-6), 32 (0-8), 33 (35-12) situated in Village Beri Khas, Tehsil Jhajjar, on the premise that the aforementioned land was allotted during consolidation of holdings and had been in cultivation of defendant Nos.1 to 4 as tenants gair marooshi (without rent) under the plaintiff and defendant No.5 and their ancestors. The plaintiff and defendant No.5 as well as their ancestors filed a suit for ejectment against defendant Nos.1 to 4, which was, vide order dated 08.09.1952, decreed by the Collector, Rohtak. In the proceedings taken for execution of the aforementioned order, the plaintiff, defendant No.5 and their ancestors had taken the possession on 11.12.1964, but thereafter defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed a suit bearing No.449 for declaration and permanent injunction against the plaintiffs, which was dismissed on 08.02.1966. Appeal against the same was also dismissed on 05.05.1967, however, in regular second appeal, this Court vide order dated 11.03.1977, dismissed the suit in respect of the cultivated land and remanded the case in respect of the land under the house. As indicated above, the suit was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.1978 under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, but in the meantime, as per the averments in the plaint, the defendants forcibly and illegally had taken the possession of the suit land and unauthorizedly constructed two kothas, therefore, a cause of action arose to file the suit.

6. Defendant No.5 was served, but did not appear and proceed ex parte. However, defendant Nos.1 to 4 contested t