JUDGMENT Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- Defendant-Gram Panchayat is appellant before this Court and after loosing the case before the appellate Court in the appeal filed by plaintiff-Mam Chand, which was allowed by learned District Judge, Faridabad, has filed the present appeal. After the death of plaintiffrespondent No.1-Mam Chand, now his LRs are on record. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that plaintiff-Mam Chand filed a suit for permanent injunction pleading therein that he was owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 31 kanals situated within the revenue estate of Village Karna, District Faridabad. Prior to the filing of the present suit, the question of ownership and title was decided in earlier suit No. 442 of 1973 vide judgment dated 16.12.1975 by the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Palwal. The plaintiff was declared owner in possession of the suit land by holding that the defendants were in any manner with the title of the suit property. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat by filing written statement, wherein, it was pleaded that plaintiff had no concern with the suit land and the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1975 was passed without having any jurisdiction which was null and void. The said judgment was not binding upon the rights of defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues in the suit:- (1) Whether the plaintiff is an absolute owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP. (2) If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction? OPP. (3) Whether the question of title and ownership between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is not involved in this Court as alleged? OPD. (4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? (5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. (6) Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction as alleged? OPD. (7) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 as alleged? OPD. (8) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct etc. to file the present suit? OPD. (9) Whether the lessees of the suit land are the necessary party to the present suit as alleged? OPD. (10) Whether the decree/judgment in suit no. 2 to 4 as alleged? OPD. (8) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct etc. to file the present suit? OPD. (9) Whether the lessees of the suit land are the necessary party to the present suit as alleged? OPD. (10) Whether the decree/judgment in suit no. 442/73 decided on 16.12.1975 is null and void and has no effect as alleged? OPD. (11) Relief. 4. On appraisal of evidence and perusal of record and evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.1985 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1975 passed in earlier suit was without any jurisdiction and same was null and void. 5. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 15.5.1985, an appeal was filed by plaintiff-Mam Chand, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.1985 and judgment and decree dated 15.5.1985 passed by the trial Court was set aside. It was held by the first appellate Court that the plaintiff was in continuous possession over the suit land from1979 to 1983 as was clear from Khasra Girdawari Ex. P-4. Thereafter defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat being not satisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court approached this Court by way of filing present Regular Second Appeal, which was admitted on 6.2.1986. 6. The following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration by this Court during pendency of the present appeal:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent alleging that he had become owner by adverse possession is maintainable in view of judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported as, [2006(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1530] : 2006(3) RCR (Civil) page 97 (Bhim Singh Vs. Zile Singh)? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 13 of the Punjab village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961? (iii) Whether the appellant Gram Panchayat having rebutted the evidence led by the plaintiff/respondent, the approach of the learned lower Appellate Court in accepting the appeal and granting decree in favour of the plaintiff/respondent is not illegal and unsustainable in law? (iv) Whether the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1975 is null and void in view of Section 13 of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961? 7. (iv) Whether the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1975 is null and void in view of Section 13 of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961? 7. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court has been challenged by appellant-Gram Panchayat on the ground that the question of jurisdiction was not considered by the first appellate Court. The appellant-Gram Panchayat had been leasing out the land for the last more than a decade, which is clear from the receipts as well as records of the Gram Panchayat. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 was neither owner in possession of the land in dispute nor was having any right over the suit property. The plaintiff himself has stated in his cross-examination that the suit property was ancestral one, whereas, in the earlier suit, he has stated that he had become owner by way of adverse possession, Hence, the stand of plaintiff was contradictory in both the suits. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, namely, Gian Chand, who was close associate of plaintiff chose not to contest the earlier suit and because of that reason no appeal was filed. Learned counsel also submits that suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court by holding that the suit land was shamlet deh and the same has been admitted by the plaintiff before the civil Court during pendency of the proceedings in the suit. The judgment and decree in the earlier suit is not legally binding upon the aggrieved party and the same is null and void. 8. As per Section 13 of the Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred and as such the same is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel also submits that judgment of the earlier suit cannot be relied upon being null and void. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, [2009(1) Law Herald (SC) 126] : 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 417, Gram Panchayat of village Naulakha Vs. Ujagar Singh 2000 (4) RCR (Civil) 749, Shakuntla Devi Vs. Kamla and others, [2005(2) Law Herald (SC) 634] : 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 668 as well as of this Court in Bhim Singh and others Vs. Zile Singh and others, [2006(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1530] : 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97, Ajit Kaur Vs. Ujagar Singh 2000 (4) RCR (Civil) 749, Shakuntla Devi Vs. Kamla and others, [2005(2) Law Herald (SC) 634] : 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 668 as well as of this Court in Bhim Singh and others Vs. Zile Singh and others, [2006(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1530] : 2006(3) RCR (Civil) 97, Ajit Kaur Vs. Tri Bhawan and another 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 778, Firm Roop Milan Hotel and Restaurant, Moga Vs. Sathi Vijay Kumar 2011(2) RCR (Civil) 970 and Suresh and others Vs. Parveen Kumar and another 2012 (4) RCR (Civil) 163 in support of his contentions. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No.1 submits that the judgment of trial Court was set aside by the first appellate Court by giving a detailed reasoning. The first appellate Court has categorically held that plaintiff-respondent No.1 has been recorded as owner in the revenue record and as per Section 44 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 a presumption of truth was available to the entries in the jamabandi and it was for defendant No.1-appellant to belie the presumption but he failed to do so. In the jamabandi for the year 1978-79, the plaintiff was recorded as owner in possession of the suit land and thereafter nothing was there on record to show that he was dispossessed from the suit land at any point of time. 10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgments passed by both the Courts below. 11. Admittedly, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court up holding that judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff in earlier suit was void and illegal and was passed without having any jurisdiction. It is also an admitted fact that the suit property was of Gram Panchayat being shamlat deh. Only on the basis of judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit, the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court was reversed. The case of defendant No.1-appellant is that earlier judgment was not challenged by Gram Panchayat as Sarpanch was in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.1 and that attained finality. Moreover, plaintiffrespondent No.1 has taken contradictory stand in the earlier suit as well as in the present suit. The case of defendant No.1-appellant is that earlier judgment was not challenged by Gram Panchayat as Sarpanch was in favour of plaintiff-respondent No.1 and that attained finality. Moreover, plaintiffrespondent No.1 has taken contradictory stand in the earlier suit as well as in the present suit. In cross-examination, plaintiff-respondent No.1 has stated that the suit land is his ancestral property, whereas, in the earlier suit, he has alleged that he had become owner by way of adverse possession. It has also come on record that as per revenue record, earlier Gram Panchayat has been leasing out the land for more than a decade ago. 12. The question for consideration before this Court is whether the plaintiff-respondent No.1 can become owner in possession on the basis of judgement and decree passed in the earlier suit, which is void, illegal and without any jurisdiction. The first appellate Court has not considered this aspect and has reversed the judgment of the trial Court only on the ground that earlier suit was decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The findings recorded by the trial Court are reproduced as under:- “The case of the plaintiff is that he is in adverse possession of the suit land and he has become the owner by adverse possession. The entry in the revenue record that he is in possession of the suit land “Bashreh Malkan Bawaja La-IImi” is incorrect. Rather the plaintiff is in adverse possession of the suit land Batore Gair Morusi Bashrah Malkan Bawaja jabardasti. As the record shows the suit land is owned by panchayat deh. The plaintiff in order to get the decree for declaration that he has become the owner by adverse possession, has to prove that he is in continuous possession of the suit land for more than 12 years and his possession has been peaceful, continuous and hostile to the title of the owner. From the revenue record it is so much proved that the plaintiff is in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit land for more than 12 years. The question is whether this possession of the plaintiff has been hostile and adverse to the title of the real owner or not. From the revenue record it is so much proved that the plaintiff is in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit land for more than 12 years. The question is whether this possession of the plaintiff has been hostile and adverse to the title of the real owner or not. The plaintiff has no where stated in his own statement that the entry in the revenue record showing his possession as Gair Marusi Bashrah Malkan is incorrect and that he is in possession of the suit land as owner. However, there is no evidence by the defendant that this land was previously owned by shalmat deh and that with the coming of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, the suit land vested in panchayat deh. The revenue record shows that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as owner, but the revenue record does not show how the plaintiff or his father came into the ownership of the suit land. This evidence shows that the plaintiff or his father has always been claiming the suit land as owned by them. It is further proved from the oral evidence on record that the plaintiff and his father had been paying the land revenue.” 13. The judgment and decree passed in the year 1975, which is null and void and without jurisdiction cannot be binding upon the rights of the appellant. Moreover, such decree is not required to be challenged. Admittedly, the land in dispute is shamlat deh as admitted by plaintiff respondent No.1 before the trial Court. 14. Moreover, the question of title cannot be decided by the civil Court. When possession over the suit land has not been proved, the relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 has claimed his right of possession only on the basis of void decree, which is not binding upon the defendant. Title has not been challenged. Even the suit was not maintainable. 15. In view of the facts and discussion as above, I am of the view that judgment of the first appellate Court is not only perverse but contrary to the law settled in various judgements. The well reasoned judgment of the trial Court has been set aside by relying upon the judgment in a suit which is null and void and cannot be relied upon. The well reasoned judgment of the trial Court has been set aside by relying upon the judgment in a suit which is null and void and cannot be relied upon. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 has been taking two contradicting stands in two different suits as in one suit he is claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession and in another suit, he is claiming that land is ancestral and he is cultivating the land for the last many years. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed, the judgment passed by first appellate Court is set aside and the judgment passed by the trial Court is upheld. ---------0.B.S.0------------