Judgment

Mr. Arun Monga, J.

For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court.

2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, appellants/defendant are in second appeal before this Court assailing learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 12.01.2012, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 05.05.2014, decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction for restraining appellant-defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of plaintiff.

3. Briefly stated, facts, as noticed by learned Courts, are as below:

3.1 Land bearing khewat/Khatauni No.146/164, Khasra No.10//6/7/1 measuring 3 Kanals was agricultural land and land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.214/245, Khasra Nos.45, 129/2 measuring 5 Marlas was Gair Mumkin Bara (for tethering cattle and other uses) under the tenancy of Sh. Rama Nand, grandfather of plaintiff, as per revenue record. After the death of Rama Nand, plaintiff being his grandson stepped into possession of above mentioned suit land and has been in possession of the property in dispute since 1986. Appellant/defendantNo.1 alleged to have purchased suit land on the basis of doubtful General Power of Attorney from its original owners without any notice to plaintiff-respondent, who was tenant over the property. Defendants started interfering into peaceful possession of plaintiff over suit land and threatened to dispossess him forcibly and illegally without any legal right.

4. Upon notice, appellant-defendants contested the suit raising preliminary objections qua Court fee; concealment of true and material facts.

4.1. On merits, it was averred that land bearing Khasra No.10//6/7/1, measuring 3 Kanals was agricultural land and land bearing khasra Nos.45, measuring 5 Marlas was Gair Mumkin land. Possession of respondent-plaintiff over land bearing Khasra No.10//6/7/1 measuring 3 Kanals was admitted. It was further averred that defendant is not tenant over land bearing Khasra Nos.45 & 129/2 measuring 5 Marlas. It was averred that land was Gair Mumkin land for the last more than 20 years. Grandfather of respondent-plaintiff had given possession of the land bearing Khasra Nos.45and 129/2 to the owners of land i.e. Sham Sunder and others. Owners did not cultivate the same and kept it vacant. No crop was sown on this land. Appellant No.1 had purchased the same land bearing Khasra Nos.10/6/7/1, 45 and 129/2 vide sale deed dated 29.5.2003. After purchase of the same, appellant No.1 raised level of land by putting earth and raised construction over the property. The other allegations were also denied.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed property as tenant? OPD

2. If first issue is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, if so its effect? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for special costs under section 35 CPC? OPD.

5. Relief.”

6. The parties to the suit adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their pleadings and to discharge their respective onus as per the issues, ibid.

7. On appraisal of evidence vis-à-vis pleadings, learned trial Court decided issues No.1 to 4 in favour of respondent-plaintiff. Consequently, learned trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent to the effect that plaintiff being tenant is entitled to the protection of his right and defendants are restrained from dispossessing him except in due course of law, vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.2012.

8. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree dated 12.01.2012, appellant-defendants preferred first appeal.

9. Learned First Appellate Court below dismissed the appeal, resulting in Regular Second Appeal before this Court.

10. In its judgment, learned First Appellate Court, inter alia, observed, as under:

“12