Virender Singh, Judge

The appellants have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree, dated 10.12.2015, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court at Nurpur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No. 1-1/XIII/2014, titled as, ‘Udham Singh & anr. versus Raj Kumar’.

Vide judgment and decree, dated 10.12.2015, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, preferred by the appellants, against the judgment and decree, dated 10.12.2013, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Indora, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 42 of 2011, titled as, ‘Udham Singh & anr. versus Raj Kumar & anr.’, whereby, the learned trial Court has dismissed the above titled suit.

For the sake of convenience, the parties, to the present lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned trial Court.

Brief facts, leading to filing the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:

As per the stand taken by the plaintiffs, they alongwith defendants and others are joint owners of khata No. 201, measuring 47-04-42 HM. According to the further stand of the plaintiffs, they are exclusively occupying the suit land, whereas defendants have recently purchased share in whole khata No. 201. As such, it has been asserted that defendants have no right to dispossess them and to raise construction over the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, on the basis of mutation Nos. 510 and 519, defendants are threatening to dispossess them to raise construction over the suit land. Hence, a prayer has been made to decree the suit.

When, put to notice, the suit has been contested, by the defendants, by filing written statement, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, estoppel and concealment of material facts.

On merit, joint ownership of the parties over the suit land has not been disputed, however, exclusive possession of the plaintiffs has been disputed. According to the defendants, defendant No. 2 has purchased 0-16-43 HMs land from co-sharer namely Bishan Dass, 0-03-86 HM land from co-sharer Lal Chand, 0-04-92 HM land from co-sharer Prakash Chand and 0-07-68 HM land from co-sharer Govind Singh in Khata No. 201. Similarly, defendant No. 1 has purchased land measuring 0-00-98 HM from defendant No. 2. Plaintiff No. 1 is stated to have sold 10 marlas of land to the father of defendant No. 1 and father-in-law of defendant No. 2, vide agreement dated 27.4.1991, for sale consideration of Rs. 2,000/-.

As per the case of the defendants, the plaintiffs had earlier filed the suit for injunction, with regard to suit land against Desh Raj (father of defendant No. 1 and father-in-law of defendant No. 2), which was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed by the learned District Judge on 5.6.2008. The aforesaid judgment was assailed by plaintiff No. 1 by way of Regular Second Appeal, which is stated to be pending, in this Court.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 22.11.2011:

“1.Whether the suit land is joint between the parties, as alleged?-OPP.

2. Whether the defendants threatened to interfere by raising construction over the suit land, as alleged?-OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for?-OPP.

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable?-OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit?-OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi?-OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action?-OPD.

8. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from the Court?-OPD.

9. Relief.

Thereafter, parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. After