VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 10.02.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-Gram Panchayat, Babiyal was partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 16.08.1985 passed by the learned Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Ambala City dismissing the suit was modified. The appellant-defendant seeks restoration of the trial Court judgment.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. The dispute pertains to land comprised in Khasra No. 228, Khewat/Khatauni No. 651/792, as per Jamabandi for the year 1975-76, situated within the abadi of village Babial, Tehsil Ambala. The plaintiff-Gram Panchayat instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in its alleged possession and from alienating any part of the suit land. The case of the plaintiff was that the land was recorded as Shamlat Deh and vested in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It was pleaded that proceedings under Section 7 of the Act culminated in delivery of possession to the Panchayat on 06.08.1968, as reflected in Rojnamcha report no.593 (Ex. P1). Though the defendant had challenged the ejectment proceedings before the High Court, resulting in quashing of the orders, it was asserted that actual possession was never restored to him and continued with the Panchayat. The appellant-defendant contested the suit, denying the ownership and possession of the Panchayat. It was pleaded that he and his predecessors had been in continuous possession of the land for decades and had become owners. Reliance was placed upon documentary evidence Ex. D1 to Ex. D8, including earlier judgments of the High Court (Ex. D7 and Ex. D8), and sale deeds executed in favour of third parties.

3. Upon a meticulous examination of the pleadings and the competing claims of the parties, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the suit land and the suit land vests in plaintiff? OPD

2. Whether the matter has already been decided by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and as such is res judicata between the parties? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff in the present form is not maintainable? OPD

4. Whether the plaint has not been properly verified and signed by an authorised person, if so, its effect? OPD

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

6. Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 100 years as owner and the possession is open and hostile, if so, its effect? OPD

7. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and motivated, if so, its effect? OPD

8. Relief.

4. Both parties were afforded full and adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and defences. The learned trial Court, upon a comprehensive evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, returned findings against the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff failed to prove possession over the suit land and, on the contrary, the evidence on record including Ex. P2 (Jamabandi 1975-76) and defence documents established that the defendant was in possession. The Court further held that the suit for injunction was not maintainable in the absence of proof of possession and also in view of the statutory bar under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. Consequently, the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.08.1985 by the learned Trial Court.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. The First Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 10.02.1987, partly allowed the appeal, modified the decree, and granted limited relief in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The Court held that though the