JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

CM-10895-C-2018

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 9 days in refiling the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 9 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed off.

RSA-4126-2018

3. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging concurrent findings returned by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2015 and the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2017.

4. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-appellant herein filed a suit for permanent injunction averring in the plaint that he alongwith his brothers, sister and real uncle Madan Lal and Bihari Lal, was joint owner in possession of the suit land situated in the revenue estate of Village Maheru, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala as fully described in the heading of the plaint as per the jamabandi for the year 2008-09 and that he inherited the disputed land from his late father Shiv Raj Kumar, who was also joint owner to the extent of land measuring 27 kanals 04 marlas being 1/3rd share of the total disputed land measuring 81 kanals 12 marlas. It was further averred that Shiv Raj Kumar had died on 12.12.2006 and after his death, the plaintiff-appellant had become the joint owner in the suit land. According to the plaintiff-appellant the land had been partitioned and the suit land fell to his share. It was further the case set up that there was a tubewell and an electric connection in the name of one Vikram Singh son of Chanan Singh who was the original owner of the electric connection and tubewell on the disputed land. The said Vikram Singh sold land measuring 108 kanals 16 marlas to Baru Ram, the plaintiff-appellants' grandfather, and his father, Shiv Raj Kumar, and to Madan Lal, Manohar Lal and Bihari Lal. It was further the case that Baru Ram purchased the property vide the sale deed dated 02.07.1969 alongwith tubewell and electric connection and the defendant-respondents had no concern with the same. On notice, the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits it was averred that the suit property was not joint although the same was shown as joint property in the revenue record. It was the case set up by the defendant-respondent Nos.1 and 2 that originally their grandfather, namely, Chanan Singh, was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 216 kanals 0 marlas. Chanan Singh died and after his death, the land was mutated in the name of his two sons, namely, Balwant Singh and Vikram Singh. Vikram Singh sold his share to Baru Ram. Vide a sale deed dated 10.06.2010 the defendant-respondent No.2 is stated to have sold his exclusive share to the defendant-respondent No.3 and that Madan Lal and Bihari Lal, the uncles of the plaintiff-appellant, also sold their exclusively owned and possessed share to the defendant-respondent No.3 who was in possession of the same. A separate written statement was filed by the defendant-respondent No.3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from the Hon'ble Court ? OPD

5. Relief.

5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2015 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Court which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2017. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that both the Courts have erred in dismissing his suit. It