Substantive justice prevails over technicalities in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - By this judgment two Regular Second Appeals i.e RSA3023-2018 and RSA-6206-2017 shall stand disposed of.

2. Learned counsel for the parties are Advocate Appeared : idem that both these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.

3. In both the appeals, the defendants in the trial court are the appellants.

4. These appeals have been filed against the judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, reversing the judgment of the learned trial court. The plaintiff/respondent-Megh Raj filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that he is owner in possession of the residential plot measuring 90 feet x 35 feet depicted by letters ABCD in the lay out plan attached with the plaint. The plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid property is situated within the revenue estate of village Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad and bounded by

5. It is the pleaded case of the plaintiff that previously defendants' predecessor had filed a suit for injunction against the plaintiff's father which was dismissed on 05.11.1999. Appeal filed against the judgment of the learned trial court was also dismissed on 01.10.2011. The defendants contested the suit by submitting that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by Respondent-judicata. It is claimed that the defendants are in settled possession of land bearing Khewat no. 310 Khatoni no. 372 rectangle no. 7 killa no.17(1-10) situated within the revenue estate of Village Palla as "Gair Mourusi" tenant under the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad. The defendants also filed a counter claim that they are "Gair Mourusi" tenants and are in possession of the land for the last 50 years. On appreciation of pleadings, the following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the knowledge of the court and is not entitled to the relief as claimed for? OPD.

5. Relief. Thereafter, vide order dated 8.9.2014 following issues were framed by ld. Civil Judge, with respect to issues involved in the counter-claim:-

6-A Whether the counter-claimant is entitled to relief of decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPD.

6-B Whether the counter-claim is not maintainable? OPP

6-C Whether the counter-claimant has no cause of action? OPP."

6. Learned trial court dismissed the suit, however, as noticed above, learned First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment of the trial court.

7. Before this Court examines the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, certain important findings, correctness whereof has not been assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants needs to be noticed.

(i) It is not in dispute that Kanhiya filed a suit against the plaintiff's father, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 05.11.2019. The aforesaid judgment was affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 01.10.2011.

(ii) Defendant no.1 Harinder Singh had taken a stand in civil suit no. RBT 535 dated 30.10.2000 that the land is owned and possessed by the plaintiff-Megh Raj who has not been impleaded as a party in the said suit. The defendants had also filed a suit against Chuttan etc. with respect to the suit property which was dismissed by the court of Sh. R.K.Dogra, learned Civil Judge, Faridabad, on 05.11.1999.

(iii) The defendants have not produced any lay out plan to prove that the property in dispute falls within the revenue estate of village Palla and not within the revenue estate of village Sarai Khawaja.

8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at length and