JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.( Oral)

1. The instant Regular Second Appeal (for short 'RSA') has been preferred by the appellant/respondents under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, assailing the judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below. The appeal is primarily founded on the contention that the findings recorded by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari and the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari are contrary to law, founded upon a manifest misappreciation of evidence, and have occasioned substantial prejudice to the appellant, thereby warranting the intervention of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under the said provision.

2. For the sake of clarity and convenience in the discussion, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiffs and the defendants, corresponding to their respective status before the learned Trial Court. The salient and material facts forming the foundation of the present proceedings, which are essential for an informed adjudication of the issues, are briefly narrated as follows:-

"The plaintiffs assert ownership and possession of land measuring 3 kanals 19 marlas, comprising Khewat No. 186, Khatoni No. 288, and Khasra No. 311, situated at Rewari. The defendants have allegedly encroached upon a portion of the said land by paving bricks, as shown in red and marked EFGH in the site plan annexed to the plaint.

Despite repeated demands, the defendants have failed to remove the encroachment and have threatened further intrusion. Hence, the plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from further encroachment and a mandatory injunction directing them to remove the existing encroachment over portion EFGH."

3. Upon notice being issued by the learned trial Court the defendants appeared and in their joint written statement, have categorically denied the plaintiffs' ownership of the suit land, asserting that it has already vested in the Municipal Committee, Rewari. They further contended that bricks were laid on portion EFGH purely for the benefit and convenience of the public. It is also pleaded that the plaintiffs lack locus standi, are barred by estoppel arising from their own conduct, and that the suit is not maintainable in its present form.

4. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a replication, specifically controverting the averments made in the written statement and reaffirming the assertions and claims set out in the plaint. Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings and the respective contentions of the parties, the Court has been pleased to frame the following issues for determination, with a view to securing a focused, comprehensive, and judicious adjudication of the matters in controversy between them, which are as under:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of khasra No.311 of khewat No. 186 situated in the revenue estate of Rewari?OPP.

2. Whether the site in dispute shown by letters EFGH red in the site plan is part of khasra No.311?OPP.

3. Whether the site in dispute has vested in municipal committee, Rewari as alleged?OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from bringing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD.

5. Whether the suit in its present form is not maintainable?OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring the present suit? OPD.

7. Relief.

5. The parties were afforded ample opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and defense. Upon the conclusion of evidence and after hearing learned counsel at length, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari having carefully considered the pleadings, material on record, and submissions advanced, decreed the suit and observed that "In light of the foregoing, the suit is decreed with costs, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession over the portion marked ABCD in the site plan (Mark A), and a mandatory injunction directing the removal o