JUDGMENT

Arun Monga J. (Oral)

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, appellant-defendants are in second appeal before this Court assailing learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 14.12.2019, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20.01.2023, decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondents for permanent injunction for restraining defendant-appellants from interfering in their peaceful settled possession over suit property.

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

3.1 Haryana Wakf Board is the owner of the suit property, which was leased out in favour of father of plaintiffs, namely, Late Sh. Tilu Ram S/o Roshan Lal & plaintiff No.1 jointly vide Lease order no.24/Lease-Urban/F no. 1369/515/9643 dated 28.10.1985 w.e.f. 01.08.1984. After completing the lease formalities, plaintiffs were originally put in actual physical possession of plot measuring 78 sq. yards (including the suit property) by local official of the Wakf Board, Panipat for using the same. Plaintiffs thus came into the possession of suit property. They had been regularly depositing the rent in terms of the aforesaid lease deed, as and when demanded by the Haryana Wakf Board.

3.2. Out of the total allotted area of 78 sq. yards, the plaintiffs and their father Tilu Ram surrendered possession of plot measuring 35 sq. yards in favour of one Mulak Raj S/o Faqir Chand who then surrendered it to one Mida and later, Mida surrendered it to Dharambir S/o Nirmal Dass. Father of plaintiffs & plaintiff No.1 thus remained in possession over plot measuring about 43 sq. yards as on the spot. After death of Tilu Ram, plaintiff No.2 being his son stepped into his shoes along with plaintiff No.1.

3.3. Defendants also got on lease a shop over plot measuring about 20 sq. yards vide lease order dated 24/Lease-Urban/F no. 1009/98/21612 dated 27.03.1999 w.e.f. 01.11.1998 @ rent as Rs. 400/- per month. Plots in possession of plaintiffs and the defendants are totally separate, as shown on overleaf of their respective lease orders. However, in June 2015, defendants started to proclaim that they were owners-in possession of suit property by way of registered sale deed. On 14.07.2015 at about 10:00 a.m., defendants along with 10-12 notorious people came over suit property and tried to interfere in possession of plaintiffs forcibly/illegally, but could not succeed due to timely intervention of respectable persons of locality as well as local police of Police Post Tehsil Camp, Panipat.

3.4. On 09.01.2017, defendants again came at the suit property and tried to interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 Sunita claimed to be owner of suit property vide Transfer Deed executed by defendant No.1 in her favour, although they were absolute strangers to suit property. It was in the possession of plaintiffs as lessees of Haryana Wakf Board, which was owner thereof. Although Wakf properties are inalienable, defendants succeeded in forging and fabricating the alleged sale deed to lay a claim on the suit property.

4. Upon notice, defendants filed a joint written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties and concealment of material facts.

4.1. It was averred that suit property shown by plaintiff as Khasra No.3897 min, was actually Khasra No.3896. But plaintiff was misrepresenting facts for grabbing valuable property of defendants. Defendants were owners-in-possession of suit property sin