JUDGMENT : 

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-11049-C-2023

Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 29 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and delay of 29 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CM-11050-C-2023

Prayer in this application filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is for deleting the name of respondent no.4 (Defendant No.2 in the original Civil Suit) from the memorandum of parties of the captioned appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents by deleting the name of respondent No.4 from the array of the memo of parties as the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/appellant.

3. Heard.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and respondent No.4 is deleted from the memorandum of parties. Registry is directed to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.

RSA-3094-2023 (O&M)

Defendant No.6 is in the Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein, for declaration and permanent injunction, has been decreed by both the District Courts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 8.10.1985, executed by Gurdial Singh Chela Ram Singh Chela Ganesha in favour of Harcharan Singh s/o Roor Singh(deceased) represented by defendants No.1 to 5 is illegal, invalid and not binding so far as the plaintiffs' rights in House No.342, Manimajra, Chandigarh/suit property, is concerned and the plaintiff continued to be owner of said house and ownership has been wrongly recorded in the records of the Municipal Corporation Manimajra, Chandigarh in the name of Gurdial Singh by defendant No.7 and the same entry is illegal and invalid and factually wrong and are liable to be set aside. The description of the property is East: 57 ft bounded by Dera, West: 57 ft bounded by park, North: 27 ft bounded by Street, South: 27 ft. bounded by house of Atma, which is owned and possessed by plaintiff No.1 Panchayati Akhara Nirmala Khankal Haridwar; and subsequent sale deed dated 15.6.1998, executed by defendants No.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 with regard to the aforesaid property is illegal, nonest and not binding on the plaintiff as Gurdial Singh was merely a Sewadar and had no authority or locus standi to execute sale deed in favour of Harcharan Singh and thus legal heirs of Harcharan Singh i.e. defendants No.1 to 5 do not acquire any right, title or concern in House no.342, Manimajra, Chandigarh nor they are in possession thereof and plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the house in question, thus sale deed be declared illegal and invalid; and suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants no.7 not to transfer the ownership of House No.342 in the name of defendant No.6 Ishwar Singh s/o Hari Singh, on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 15.6.1998 and further defendants be restrained not to interfere in possession of plaintiff and not to alienate the property in question in any manner during the pendency of the suit.

3. It was pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff is a registered Society and is owner of Deras situated all over India including the suit property describable as Dera No. 342, Manimajra, Chandigarh which is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that after NAC (Notified Area Committee) Manimajra came into formation, property in question was shown to be owned by Gurdial Singh Chela Ram Singh Chela Ganesha in the records of the Committee. In fact, Gurdial Singh was Sewadar of the Dera and he has no locus standi t