JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. (Oral). - The hearing was held through video conferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

2. By this judgment, Regular Second Appeal No.879 of 2007 and Regular Second Appeal No.3975 of 2019, shall stand disposed of, as the main parties & their counsels are common and the dispute is also with respect to the same property. Learned counsels are ad idem that both the appeals can be disposed of by a single judgement as the substratum of both is the same.

3. At the outset, it is important to note that regular second appeals, in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh are regulated by Section 41 of the Punjab Court Act 1918, and not by the provisions of Section 100 CPC, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pankaiakshi Vs. Chandrika (2016) 6 SCC 157 (5 Judges Bench).

4. In Regular Second Appeal No.879 of 2007, the plaintiff-Laxmi Narayan is in appeal against the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court which in turn reversed the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction claiming that the mutation of plot, sanctioned by the revenue authorities on 08.09.1997, is not binding on his rights. He further prayed that the defendants be permanently restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession.

5. Regular Second Appeal No.3975 of 2019, has been filed by the defendant-Laxmi Narain. Kartar Singh and Babita ( Respondents) filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming that they are the owners in possession of a plot measuring 11 marl as which was also the property in dispute in the previous suit. Both the courts have decreed the suit on the strength of the judgment passed in the previous suit by the first appellate court.

6. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the judgments passed as well as the record of the courts below, requisitioned in RSA No. 879 of 2007. Learned counsels, representing their respective parties, have also filed their respective written submissions.

7. After having heard learned counsels representing the parties, this court is of the considered view that the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court in Regular Second Appeal No.879 of 2007 and the judgment passed in the other appeals, are erroneous & suffer from material irregularity. In RSA No.879 of 2007, the first appellate court, before reversing the judgment of the trial court, has failed to consider the case in proper perspective and also failed to discuss and critically analyze the reasons given by the trial court while decreeing the suit.

8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to extract the pleadings in paragraphs 2 to 6, of the plaint and corresponding paragraphs of the written statement:-

"2. That the father of plaintiff late Sh. Chander Singh purchased a residential house from late Sh. Hardwari Lal son of Sh. Natha through a registered sale deed dated 05.04.961 for a sale consideration ofRs.300/-.

3. That the father of the plaintiff also purchased a plot measuring 0K-11M which is described in khasra no.2341, khata no.378, Red. & Killa No. 100/5, about 330 sq. yards, on dated 05.4.1961 for a sale consideration of Rs.95, and the plot was previously comprised in Khewat No.267 and the said plot was allotted to late Sh. Hardwari Lal on 05.12.1954 during the consolidation and same is also described in allotment book issued by the Government of Haryana. The said plot is bounded as under-

East : Rasta

West : Gali Share-Aam

North : Gali Share-Aam.

South : House ofTota Ram, Gadaria and house of Sh. Jai Pal, Dhobi.

The site plan of the said plot is attached herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

4. That the father of the plaintiff took the possession of said plot on the date of purchase i.e. 5.4.1961 and since then the plaintiffs father became owner in possession of the said plot and as well as of house as mentioned