Romesh Verma, Judge

The present appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree, dated 16.4.2005, as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants/respondents No. 1 to 4 was accepted and the cross-appeal filed by the plaintiffs/cross-objectors/appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree, dated 30.12.1999, as passed by the learned Sub Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/cross-objectors/appellants, was set aside.

2 Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff, Pritu @ Pritam (since deceased) filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief for permanent prohibitory injunction in the trial court on 28.5.1995. As per the averments, as made in the plaint, subject matter in dispute is land measuring 5 bighas 19 biswas, bearing Khasra No. 1037 (5-0), 1038 (0-1), 855 (0-6) and 865 (0-12), comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 1 min/2/3 situated in village Dhang Nihli, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan (HP) as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1991-92. As per the case set up by the plaintiff, he was co-owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit land. He never sold his share to defendants No. 1 to 4, namely, Gurdial Singh, Baldev Singh, Bhajan Singh, Dalip Singh, respectively or their predecessor in-title as at the time of alleged alienation, he was minor and also never inducted defendant No.7, namely, Jagat Singh, as tenant on his share in the suit land as the plaintiff always remained in possession as owner of his share in the suit land. Defendants No. 5 and 6, namely, Ganga Ram and Gianu @ Gian Singh respectively, were never authorized by the plaintiff to alienate his share to other defendants or any other person and contrary revenue record is illegal, null and void.

3 As per plaintiff, the defendants being headstrong and having no regard to law, were threatening to dispossess him from his share of the suit land, cutting and removing standing trees thereon, raising construction and alienating the suit land without having any right and title over the same. It was averred that the plaintiff came to know about illegal revenue record on 24.6.1995, when he obtained copy of jamabandi of the suit land from the Halqa Patwari. The cause of action arose to him firstly on 24.6.1995 when he came to know about illegal revenue record and secondly on 13.8.1995 when the defendants threatened him to fulfill their aforesaid illegal acts and designs and such cause of action is recurring one. Therefore, the suit was filed for granting a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is co-owner and co-sharer to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit land and contrary revenue record is illegal, null, void, inoperative, ineffective and against the rights of the plaintiff, as also decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff, raising construction, cutting and removing standing trees and alienating the suit land in any manner till the same is joint inter se the parties.

4 The suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements.

5 Defendant No.8, namely, Gurudwara Fattuwal (Ranguwal), filed written statement-cum-counter claim, wherein it was averred that the subject matter in dispute of counter claim is land measuring 0-18 bighas, bearing Khasra No. 855 (0-6) and 856 (0-12) as comprising in Khata/Khatauni No.1min/3, situated in village Dhang Nihli, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan (HP) as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1991-92. It was averred that defendant No.7 never cultivated the suit land and counter claim land in any capacity. Defendant No.1 and his brother, Harnam Singh, father of defendants No. 2 to 4, had given land bearing Khasra No. 882/1 (old) and Khasra Nos. 855 and 856 (new) to defendant No.8 in an oral gift deed, dated 24.10.2002 B.K. regarding which mutation No. 205, dated 1.11.20