JUDGMENT

Rekha Mittal, J. - Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was partly allowed by the trial Court to the following effect:-

"As a sequel to my findings, arrived at on various issues, the suit of the plaintiffs partly succeeds and is partly decreed. A decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly, the defendants are restrained from creating any type of interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs or to dispossess them except in due course of law. Parties are left to bear their own costs...."

2. The appeal preferred by unsuccessful defendants No.l and 2 (appellants herein) did not find favour with the Additional District Judge, Rewari. However, cross objections preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs were disposed of with the findings that their possession over the suit property is protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short 'the Act1). The judgment and decree under appeal are modified only to the extent that possession of the plaintiffs is protected under Section 53-A of the Act and the defendants are restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit property.

3. The facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that respondents/plaintiffs staked their claim to the suit property on the allegations that one Mool Chand was owner of the suit property which was in possession of Chhuttan Lal, grandfather of plaintiffs No.l and 2 and father in law of plaintiff No.3, as gair marusi. On 27.06.1963, Mool Chand sold the suit property in favour of Chhuttan Lal for sale consideration of Rs.400/- and since then Chhuttan Lal became owner in possession of the suit property. Later, he raised construction of residential house thereon. Electricity connection bearing 2d-485 was obtained in the name of plaintiff No.l and water connection was also obtained. Babu Lal son of Chhuttan Lal got issued licence of rickshaw puller from Market Committee, Rewari on 25.03.1975. The plaintiffs have their ration cards and voter list at this address. The defendants allege that they have purchased the suit property from Jagdish alleged to be adopted son of said Mool Chand. In the column of cultivation, Chhuttan Lal has been shown to be gair marusi tenant. Defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property qua which they have no right, title or concern. Hence the suit.

4. The defendants filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that plaintiffs have no right to file the suit; suit is not maintainable in the present form and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, they denied that Mool Chand executed agreement to sell dated 27.06.1963. The site plan produced by the plaintiffs is stated to be wrong as they have raised construction only on half portion of the suit property. The answering defendants purchased the suit property from Jagdish vide registered sale deed dated 22.12.2005. The plaintiffs are in possession of suit property as tenants. They will not dispossess the plaintiffs except in due course of law.

5. The plaintiffs filed replication re-asserting their stand taken in the plaint while denying the preliminary objections raised by the defendants.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get injunction as prayed for? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

5. Whether the present suit is bad for non pleading of the necessary parties? OPD

6. Relief.

7. The parties were permitted to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The respondents/plaintiffs adduced ev