was also noted that remedy of specific performance had not been availed of and no suit had been filed. Accordingly, it was held that the plaintiffs were entitled for the relief of permanent injunction under issue No.2 and the plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit and the suit was maintainable and there was no estoppel against the plaintiffs. The execution of the agreement inter se the parties was also noticed that the plaintiff, Sarabjit had entered an agreement and as per the revenue records, he was only in possession of land measuring 80 kanals 16 marlas whereas the balance land measuring 39 kanals 14 marlas was in possession of plaintiff No.2, Jugraj Singh as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04, and therefore, plaintiff No.2 being not a signatory to the agreement, was not bound by the agreement. Accordingly, it was held that in view of the judgment in Avinash Kumar Chauhan (supra), the delivery of possession did not stand proved and thus they were not entitled for injunction in their counter-claim. It was also held that the defendant not being in possession of the suit land, had no locus standi to file the counter-claim and it was not maintainable and was accordingly dismissed. Accordingly, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2010.
