RAM RAJ SINGH Vs. RAMANUJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant claimed a declaration of their title over the suit land and also made a prayer for injunction, restraining the respondents from disturbing their alleged possession over the land. The suit was resisted by the respondents, dismissed by the trial Court and it, decree affirmed by the lower appellate Court. being aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal has no substance and deserves to be dismissed. Both the Courts below have found that before the date of settlement, the land was recorded in the names of Awadhraj, Raghvendra Singh, Ram Pratap Singh, Onkar Singh and Shanker Singh and that half of it jointly belonged to Ram Pratap Singh and Raghvendra Singh, whereas the other half belonged to others. The appellants were claiming through Ram Pratap Singh, whereas the respondents were claiming through Raghvendra Singh. According to the appellants, the suit land had fallen to the share of their father Ram Pratap Singh, but that was not found proved. The entries shown in Ex. P. 9 cannot be believed because the entries from the same document filed by the respondent, as Ex. D.1 did not tally with them and further because as found by the lower appellate Court in paragraph 12 of its impugned judgment, copy of any such order of mutation mentioned in Ex. P. 9 was not produced or proved by the appellants. Further, it was rightly concluded by the lower appellate Court on the basis of Ex. D. 6 that had the suit land been allotted to the share of the appellants' father as alleged, the appellant No.1 Ram Raj Singh, his witness Raghuveer Singh and Visheshar Kurmi would not have been appointed Receiver in respect of the suit land in some earlier litigation. The appellants could not have acquired Bhumiswami right over the land by adverse possession, because possession of one of the joint owners is considered to be possession on behalf of all. The possession of the appellant or appellant No. 1 shown in the revenue records has been explained by the Court; below by observing that it was because the appellant No. 1 was in fact in possession of the land as Receiver.