JUDGMENT : 

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the concurrent findings of the courts below whereby the learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.01.1996 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction and the learned Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.1999 affirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

Brief Facts

2. The plaintiff Jagdish Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he purchased land comprised in Khata No.194/273, Khasra No.214/2(1-10), Khewat no. 194, Khata No.269, Khasra No.214 min(1-4) and Khasra No.210(3-4), total measuring 5 bigha 18 biswa situated in village Harchandpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It was stated that the plaintiff purchased the suit land from Malhe, Chuni sons of Kale and Ramji Lal son of Sikander vide registered sale deed dated 02.05.1986 and mutation of the land was sanctioned in his favour on 04.06.1986. It was pleaded that the vendors were gair marusi tenants and the land was earlier declared surplus and then transferred to the Govt. of Haryana and later allotted and transferred in favour of the vendors after deposit of requisite amount. The plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the suit land and pleaded that the defendants had no right, title or interest to interfere in his possession and prayed for decree of permanent injunction.

3. The defendants filed written statements. Defendant No.1 pleaded that Smt. Sunheri was a big land owner and her land including the suit land was declared surplus and thereafter exempted and transferred in her name by prescribed authority vide order dated 24.07.1986. It was further pleaded that the vendors of the plaintiff had no right to sell the land. Defendants No.2 and 3 filed written statement stating that they purchased the suit land from Smt. Sunheri vide registered sale deed dated 26.08.1987 and mutation No.417 was sanctioned in their favour. They pleaded that the sale deed dated 02.05.1986 in favour of plaintiff was illegal, void and ineffective and not binding on them. They further pleaded that they had moved an application under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act 1972 which was accepted on 24.07.1986 declaring 28 bighas exempt from surplus pool and therefore the plaintiff had no right over the land.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of the land detailed in para no.1 of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 CPC? OPD

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

5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

7. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

9. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct? OPD

10. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

11. Relief.

5. In order to prove the above issues, the plaintiff appeared as PW1. Plaintiff produced documents including copy of sale deeds Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, copies of jamabandi for 1984-85 Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, copy of mutation No.618 Ex.P5, copy of mutation No.617 Ex.P6. Whereas, the defendants produced copy of mutation Ex.D1, copies of jamabandi 1984-85 Ex.D2 and Ex.D3, jamabandi 1979- 80 Ex.D4, jamabandi 1974-75, Ex.D5 to Ex.D7, jamabandi 1969-70, Ex.D8 and Ex.D9, jamabandi 1964-65 Ex.D10 and Ex.D11, jamabandi 1956-57 Ex.D12 and copy of khasra girdawari Ex.D13.

Findings of the Trial Court

6. The trial court held that as per jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (Ex.P3), the suit land was recorded in the name of the State of Haryana and the vendors of the plaintiff, namely Malhe, Chuni and Ramjilal, were o