In a suit for injunction, if the necessary pleadings and issue regarding ownership/title are present, and the matter involves simple and straightforward questions of fact and law, the court may decide the ownership/title despite being a suit for injunction.

JUDGMENT

Arun Palli, J. - The defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2013, passed by the first appellate court, vide which the decree dated 07.03.2011, rendered by the trial court, dismissing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs was set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial court, in terms of Order 41 Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, 'CPC'), for re-decision.

2. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

3. In a suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, they prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from interfering in their peaceful possession from raising any construction and for managing and controlling Takia Khatika situated at Mohalla Khatikan wala Malerkotla.

3. In brief, the case set out by the plaintiffs was that they were members of the Khateek community and since time immemorial, the suit property was being used by Khateek Biradari for cleansing and storage of animal skin. Given the nature of their work, members of the Khateek Biradari resided together at Mohalla Khateekan, away from other communities. And as skinning of animals, washing and drying of the skin emitted a foul smell, the Khateek Biradari was ordained by His Highness, Sh. Ahmed Ali Khan, Nawab of Malerkotla, to use Dhob Ghat for skinning the dead animals. Whereas, the suit property (199 feet x 84 feet), which was bequeathed vide a gift deed dated 26.11.1926 to the Khateek Biradari, was ordered to be used only for storage of dry skin of animals. Resultantly, the suit land had been in continuous possession of the members of Khateek Biradari, and was used and managed by them for common and general purposes. But, as despite that, the defendants, who belonged to Kamboj community and had no concern with the suit property, were threatening to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs, thus, the suit.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendants No.2 to 5, it was admitted that the suit property was situated at Mohalla Khateekan wala. But, the Mohalla was inhabited by people even from the other communities, i.e. Kamboj, Gujjar, Julaha, Ghumar, Lalari, Tarkhan, Khateek etc. For, all the communities had an equal and common interest in the suit property, a body (Intzamia Committee Takia Jumla Bashindgan Deh) was formed and registered for managing the same. Accordingly, it was denied that the suit property was owned, possessed and managed only by the Khateek community. The gift deed propounded by the plaintiffs was alleged to be a forged and fictitious document.

5. In a separate written statement filed on behalf of defendants Nos. 6 to 34, it was denied if the plaintiffs had an exclusive right over the suit property. The alleged gift deed was said to be a forged/fabricated document. And, rather the suit property was claimed to be a Wakf property.

6. Upon pleadings being exchanged, and the parties to the Us having understood the rival claims, the following issues were frarned:-

1. Whether the disputed property is owned and possessed by Khateekan Biradari and was gifted away to Khateekan Biradari vide gift deed dated 26.11.1926?OPP

2. Whether Khateek Biradari has raised constructions upon the suit property, if so, its effect?OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP

4. Whether a body of Takia is a registered body and manages the affairs of the property, if so, its effect?OPP

5. If issue No.4 is proved, whether the said body is fictitious and forged?OPP

6. Whether gift deed dated 26.11.1926 is forged and fictitious document?OPD

6a. Whether the Court has jurisdiction in this suit? OPP

6b. Whether the suit is maintainable?OPP

6c. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?OPD

6d. Whether the cause of action is there to the plaintiflPOPP

7. Relief.

7. But, for its significance and decisive bearing on the issue that arises for c