JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The present second appeal has been preferred by one of the plaintiffs, assailing the judgment & decree dated 05.12.2000 passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed upon reversal of the judgment & decree dated 27.03.1999 granted by the trial Court.

2. For the sake of clarity and to avoid any confusion, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status before the trial Court. The record of the trial Court, as available on the Document Management System (DMS), has been duly perused.

3.1 The factual matrix, in brief, is that the plaintiffs, residents of village Dhani Bhakran and claiming to be biswedars therein, instituted the suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land measuring 7 kanal 18 marla, as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1990–91. It was their specific case that prior to them, their father, Sheo Narain, was in cultivating possession of the suit land as owner, and upon his demise, the plaintiffs continued in possession thereof.

3.2 The grievance of the plaintiffs arose upon discovering that the defendant—Gram Panchayat, Dhani Bhakran, had allegedly procured sanction of Mutation No. 410 dated 10.09.1983 in its favour, clandestinely and without any lawful authority. According to the plaintiffs, the said mutation was illegal, void, and liable to be set aside, inter alia, on the ground that the suit land did not fall within the category of shamlat deh and, therefore, could not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It was further asserted that the mutation had been sanctioned without issuance of any notice to them, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

3.3 On these pleadings, the plaintiffs sought a decree of declaration affirming their ownership and possession over the suit land, along with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their possession.

4.1 Defendant–Gram Panchayat contested the suit raising various preliminary objections. It was contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The suit, instituted in the year 1996, was also pleaded to be barred by limitation, as the impugned mutation was stated to have been sanctioned as far back as in the year 1983. The plaintiffs were alleged to have no locus standi to institute the suit, and the suit was further stated to be bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.

4.2 On merits, the defendant asserted that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands. It was specifically pleaded that proceedings had earlier culminated in an order dated 31.07.1993 passed by the Assistant Director, Grade-I, Siwani, whereby Sheo Narain, the father of the plaintiffs, had been ordered to be ejected from the suit land. On the strength of the said order, it was contended that neither Sheo Narain nor the plaintiffs had any subsisting right to retain possession of the suit land. The suit was also alleged to be barred by the principle of res judicata. The defendant maintained that Mutation No. 410 had been validly sanctioned in accordance with law and that the present suit had been filed merely to harass the Gram Panchayat and to unlawfully grab the land, which, according to the defendant, vested in the Gram Panchayat as shamlat deh. On these pleadings, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court framed necessary issues. Both sides led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims, which was thereafter duly appreciated by the trial Court.

6.1 On a comprehensive evaluation of the material on record, the trial Court returned finding that the suit land did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), and