carved out different plots for raising shops and d eveloping a commercial site al o ng the main Amba l a–Hissar Road. The plots were o f different sizes, and at the tim e of carving out the colony, land in front of the pl o ts/shops was left undisputedly for parking of ve h icles of plot-holders as well a s the general public visiting the commercial ce n tre. The plaintiffs aver that t h ey had purchased their respec t ive plots/constructed shops from earlier owners thr o ugh registered sale deeds exec u ted approximately t w elve years ago, at which time t he price paid by them included the cost of the par k ing area also. The site plan for m ing part of their sale deeds cle a rly reflects a 100- fo ot-wide open parking area sh o wn by letters ABCD, whereas the shops construct e d by the plaintiffs are shown b y letters CDEF. 3. It is further pleaded that ever sinc e their purchase, the plaintiffs have been in peace f ul possession and enjoyment of the entire commercial ce n tre, including the s h ops, plots, houses (where appli c able), and the parking space sh o wn in the plan, and have been using the same with o ut any hindrance from anyone. T he plaintiffs assert that defendants No.3 and 4 a r e neither owners nor were eve r in possession of t h e parking area, and therefore h ad no right or authority to exe c ute any sale deed i n favour of defendants No. 1 a nd 2. According to the plaint i ffs, defendants No. 3 and 4 had themselves purchas e d certain portions of the land l o ng ago for their o w n use, but the parking space h a d always remained a common a rea belonging to th e plot/shop owners, and had al s o been reflected as vacant lan d in the site plans a t tached with the plaintiffs’ ow n title documents. It is emphas i sed that the defend a nts No.1 and 2 have no right, title or interest in the commer c ial centre except f o r whatever independent land th e y may have purchased separatel y .
