JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

1. This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.1991 passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.1990 passed by the Court of Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Pathankot, dismissing the suit for injunction, was allowed and the suit was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. A suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiff (Rajeshwar Singh) against the defendants (Ravi Pashi, Anil Pashi, Smt. Raj Rani and Ashok Kumar Pashi), restraining them from taking forcible possession or interfering in any manner in the possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 18 kanals (fully described in the plaint), situated in Village Daulatpur, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur (at the relevant time, Pathankot was a Sub-Division of District Gurdaspur) (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property').

3.1 The case set up was that plaintiff had purchased the suit property from one Chaudhary Kesho Dass vide registered sale deed dated 10.03.1987 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. Possession of the suit property was delivered to the plaintiff, after which he was the owner in possession of the same. When he purchased the suit property, there were five dilapidated rooms without roof and doors in the suit property. After purchasing the same, he got the doors etc. repaired and roof was also laid. However, the defendants, being influential persons, were threatening to take forcible possession of the suit property.

4. The suit was opposed by the defendants. It was denied that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the suit property. It was averred that the defendants had purchased some portion out of Khasra No.1124/491 and being co-sharers, the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable. It was averred that the sale deed dated 10.03.1987 was a fictitious document and was without consideration. It was averred that the defendants had purchased 6 kanals out of Khasra No.1124/491 from Chaudhary Kesho Dass vide two registered sale deeds dated 29.11.1963 some construction of 5 shops had been raised along with the boundary wall. Sanction had also been obtained from PWD (B&R) and that they were in possession of the same.

5. Replication was filed, in which the contents of the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

'1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land having purchased from Sh. Kesho Dass, vide registered sale deed dated 10.03.1987? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the defendants are owners of the suit land? OPD

4. Whether the suit is collusive with Ch. Kesho Dass. OPD

4-A Whether the report of the Local Commissioner is liable to be set aside?OPO(D)

5. Relief?

7. Parties led their respective evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. He went in appeal, which was allowed, and the suit was decreed leading to the filing of the present appeal by the defendants.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has strenuously urged that the first appellate court erroneously decreed the suit. It has been submitted that the report of the local commissioner was vague. He further submits that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was a sham transaction as no consideration had passed.

9.2 Learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the trial Court and that passed by the first appellate Court and has submitted that the judgment of the first appellate Court is not sustainable.

10. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that there is no illegality in the judgment of the first appellate Court. It has