interest of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the performa defendant with a promise not to evict them. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffrespondent No.1 had made the suit land fit for cultivation by their hard labour and spending huge amount of money. The plaintiff-respondent No.1, performa defendant and their predecessor-in-interest were never ejected from the suit land by the defendant-appellants. However, the name of defendant No.1 was wrongly reflected in the column of ownership and the name of defendant Nos.2 to 6 was wrongly recorded in the column of cultivation of the suit land though the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the performa defendant were in exclusive and in actual physical cultivating possession of the entire suit land. It was averred that the defendantappellants by taking undue advantage of the wrong revenue entries were bent upon to interfere in the peaceful and the lawful possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 on the suit land and also bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and further alienate the suit land. Hence, the suit. The defendant-appellants filed their separate written statement stating that the suit was barred by Section 11 CPC in view judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012 in the suit titled ‘Ram Parsad and others Vs. Moti and others’ in which the defendant-appellants had been declared as owners in possession of the suit land by virtue of Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 and hence the relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end. It was the stand taken that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had no concern with the suit land as he was neither the owner nor in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff-respondent No.1
