The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of co-ownership and possession rights over the disputed land, leading to the grant of a declaration and permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT :

MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. The appellants (now dead and represented by legal representatives) who were plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.783 of 1997 titled as Jaswant Singh and others v. Dal Singh and others, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2000 whereby the said suit had been dismissed by the Court of the then learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh as well as judgment and decree dated 12.09.2003 passed by the Court of the then learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram in Civil Appeal No.72 of 2000/2003 dismissing the appeal of plaintiffs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to hereinafter as per the original nomenclature as given in the suit.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiffs was that the agriculture land which was measuring 55 Kanals 5 Marlas and the details of which were given in para No.1 of the plaint (henceforth to be referred as “disputed land”) was owned and possessed by them. They had filed a suit against the defendants seeking declaration with regard to their ownership and possession over the disputed land. During the pendency of the said suit, the defendant No.1, in collusion with defendants No.2 to 24 filed a Civil Suit bearing No.305 of 1997 (now to be mentioned as “Civil Suit No.305”) wherein he impleaded the General Public as defendant No.1 and the defendants No.2 to 24 were impleaded as proforma defendants. In the said suit, the defendant No.1 claimed that the name of father of Ramji Lal who was shown as a co-sharer in the jamabandies and other revenue record pertaining to the disputed land, was infact Hans Ram and the same was wrongly mentioned as Hukmi in some entries and Dulli in some other revenue entries and while claiming that the defendants No.2 to 24 (proforma defendants of Civil Suit No.305) and he himself were successors in interest of the abovesaid Ramji Lal, he prayed for correction in the name of father of the abovesaid Ramji Lal in the revenue record. It was pleaded that the General Public and defendants No.2 to 24 were proceeded against ex parte in the said case and a judgment and decree dated 06.10.1997 was passed in favour of defendant No.1.

4. The plaintiffs in the instant case challenged the validity of the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1997 on the grounds that since they were owners in possession of the disputed land and a civil suit filed by them seeking declaration to that effect was already pending against the defendants therefore, they were necessary parties to be impleaded in Civil Suit No.305 but were not impleaded as such; that no proper service of notice by way of publication of proclamation in the newspaper had been effected even upon the General Public and hence the said proclamation was defective. They further claimed that the disputed land was previously owned by Sh. Hukmi who was uncle of their grandfather Sh. Surjan. The said Hukmi had died unmarried and issueless and had gifted the disputed land to Sh. Surjan in the year 1923 thereby making him owner in possession of the said land. It was further pleaded that the above named Ramji Lal was neither owner nor in possession of the disputed property or any part of the same and, therefore, the claim made by defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.305 that Sh. Ramji Lal was their predecessor in interest and they inherited the disputed land from him, was wrong. The plaintiffs accordingly prayed for passing a decree for declaration that they were owners in possession of the disputed property and further prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1997 passed in Civil Suit No.305 by alleging that the defendants had no right, title or interest over the suit land. As a consequential relief, they prayed for passing a decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the disputed land.

5. The defendant No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections as to l