VIDYA DEVI ALIAS VIDYA VATI Vs. PREM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAGHUNATH who had lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 2, 5/1 and 6/1 situated in village Madangir, Delhi, as his holding died in the year 1952 leaving behind Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati, widow of his predeceased first son Ram Narain, his second son Dev Raj and his third son Prem Prakash, as his legal heirs to inherit his holding. When in the year 1953-54 a jamabandi of that village was held, entry in the revenue records pertaining to the said holding was changed from the name of RAGHUNATH to the names of Vidya Devi, Dev Raj and Prem Prakash. With the coming into force of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954- the Act, respecting the area of the lands within which the said holding fell, a declaration having been made is required under that Act and the Rules made thereunder on 1st February, 1958 that the said Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati, Dev Raj and Prem Prakash were the co-bhumidhars of that holding, they became the co-bhumidhars each entitled to one -third share thereof.

(2.) HOWEVER, on 9/10/1975 Vidya Devi, filed a suit as plaintiff therein for partition of her one-third share and separate possession in the said holding before the Revenue Assistant, as provided for under sub-section(1) of Section 55 of the DL Act against the other co-bhumidhars -Prem Prakash and Dev Raj by impleading them as defendants-1 and 2 respectively in that suit. Defendant-2 Dev Raj did not have any objection for partition and giving separate possession of one-third share out of the said holding to the plaintiff as prayed in the suit. Indeed, he also claimed for partition and giving of separate possession of his one-third share in the said holding. But, defendant-1, Prem Prakash contested that suit, In his defence statement, he pleaded inter alia, that he being in exclusive possession of the said holding ever since the year 1953-54, he had perfected his title in respect to the whole of the said holding by adverse possession as against the other co-bhumidhars and, therefore, question of title was involved in the suit requiring the Revenue Assistant to frame any issue thereon and refer the same to Civil Court for obtaining a finding thereon, as required by Section 186 of the DL Act, No doubt, the Revenue Assistant, who framed the issues in that suit based on the pleadings therein framed an issue which read thus:

(3.) WE have not only heard the oral arguments of the learned counsel for the contesting parties in this appeal but also have carefully gone through the written submissions filed in this appeal by learned counsel on behalf of their respective parties.