KUNDANLAL Vs. GHANSHYAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. B. Mehrotra, J. All the aforesaid appeals are connected with each other and arise out of a common judgment wherein the Additional Civil Judge, Mathura allowed three civil appeals of Ghanshyam Das, being Civil Appeal Nos. 106 of 1975, 107 of 1975 and 108 of 1975.

(2.) ORIGINAL Suit No. 34 of 1968 was filed by Ghanshyam Das against Kanchan Singh, Suit No. 634 of 1968 was filed by Hira Lal against Ghan-Bhyam Das and others and Kanchan Singh also filed suit against Ghanshyam Das being Suit No. 419 of 1970. Munsif, Mathura vide his common judgment dated 29-9- 1975 decided all the three suits together and suit of plaintiff Ghanshyam Das was dismissed with costs and suits of Kanchan Singh and Hira La! were decided with costs. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, Ghan shyam Das preferred three first appeals, reference whereof has already been made. The Additional Civil Judge, Mathura vide his judgment dated 8-5-1979 Allowed all the three appeals, dismissed the suit of Kanchan Singh and Hira I al and decreed the suit of Ghanshyam Das, Aggrieved thereby the present three second appeals have been filed. Hira Lal is the brother of Kundan Lal and was co-plaintiff in original suit No. 634 of 1968. All the four brothers, namely, Kundan Lal, Hira Lal, Inder Mal and Puran Mal filed second appeal No. 1867 of 1979 which may be treated as leading appeal for the purposes of the decision of the present three appeals.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs, Hira Lal and others was that they were the owners of the house shown in Schedule 'a' of the plaint. THEre is a Kharanja infront of their verandah towards west and after that there is road which leads to Jatipura. THE plaintiffs' door opens towards the land in suit and their trucks pass from the road. THE plaintiffs have got customary right by way of easement over this land. THE way which leads to Jatipura has been detailed in Schedule 'b' of the plaint. THEreafter there is a piece of land which lies in Khasra No. 67 Khewat No. 1 Mohal Lachhman Singh and the same has been shown in Schedule 'c' of the plaint. THE area of Khewat No. 1 Mohai Lachhman Singh was 6. 91 acres and one Bhogi Ram had half share in it and the remaining half belonged to Ghisa and Mangtoo, the heirs of Kishan Lal. THE owners of Khewat Muhal Lachhman Singh sold particular plots, measur ing 5. 43 acres to one Brij Ratan Lal by a sale-deed dated 25-11-1929. THE plot in dispute was not mentioned in the sale- deed. Brij Ratan Lal had no concern with the remaining land of Khewat after enforcement of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Major portion of Khewat No. 1 Mahal Lachhman Singh including 5. 43 acres of land of Brij Ratan Lal came within the perview of the area, wherein Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was enforced. Thus, Brij Ratan Lal became Bhumidhar of 5. 43 acres of land over the area where the Zamindari was abolished and after abolition of Zamindari only 72 decimal land remained under Khewat No. 1 which is within the limits of Town Area and Brij Ratan Lal had no cnncern with it. Bhogi Ram and heirs of Kishan Lal were owners of this. 72 acres of land over which Zamindari was not abolished and it was declared as an urban area. However, the Lekhpal wrongly entered tha name of Brij Ratan Lal over the aforesaid area of land in Khewat.