PARSINNI Vs. SUKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/defendants' appeal by special leave arises against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1822 of 1973 dated Sept. 21, 1982. The respondents filed a suit for declaration of title to and for possession of 53 kanals 12 marlas from the appellants. The trial Court in File No. 40 dismissed the suit. The Addl. District Judge, Barnala reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1965 by judgment and decree dated November 28, 1973. The High Court confirmed the appellate decree. One Wazira Singh died surviving three sons Sukhi, Surjan and Sarwan through his first wife, Mahla Singh son and Parsinni and Chinto two minor daughters through his second wife. Wazira had died on 5.11.1984. B. K. Parsinni is the 1st defendant and Chinto died leaving behind her children defendant Nos. 2 to 5. From the evidence it would be clear that, after the death of Wazira, there was a division of the properties by meets and bounds and 53 kanals 12 marlas were left in the possession of Parsinni and Chinto for their enjoyment. The Mutation No. 1722 Ex. P -8 on 10.2.85 B.K. discloses that they shall remain in possession and enjoyment till their marriage or death whichever is earlier. Their marriage took place between 1990 -91 to 1994 -99 B. K. It is not in dispute that even thereafter for well over 30 years, the appellants continued to remain in possession and enjoyment as owners to the exclusion of the respondents Sukhi and others heirs asserted their title for the first time in 1963 by filing the suit for declaration that they are the owners of 135 kanals 6 marlas including 53 kanals 12 marias, situated in Bihla village. We are concerned only with 53 kanals and 12 marlas in this appeal.

(2.) IT is the case of the respondents that 53 kanals 12 marlas continued to remain in their possession and enjoyment. Parsinni and Chinto were never in possession and enjoyment. For the first time they came across, after a suit filed by them in the Court of the Sub -Collector against the tenants for recovery of the rents and decree thereon was passed in their favour, that they are asserting their rights as owners of the property. Therefore, the above suit initially was filed for declaration of the title to and for injunction and later converted to relief of possession.

(3.) THE sole question that emerges is whether the appellants have perfected their title by prescription. By Art. 65 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 property or any interest therein based on title, 12 years' period begins to run when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff. As stated earlier, on the demise of Wazira Singh, mutation was effected and sanctioned by the authorities that Parsinni and Chinto, daughters of Wazira Singh came into possession of 53 kanals 12 marlas of the suit property. They, being unmarried minor daughters, under law they are entitled to maintenance till they are married and in lieu thereof the property was given and remained in possession and enjoyment of the lands. They were married in 1991 -92 and 1994 -95 B. K. Thereafter the respondents, as per the entries in revenue records, had right to claim possession from the appellants but they did not do so. On the other hand the appellants remained in possession and enjoyment without any let or hindrance; the continuous entries in revenue records show them as owners. They are in enjoyment by leasing the lands to the tenants as evidenced by the judgment and the decree of the Revenue Court to the exclusion of the respondents. It would show their open assertion of their own right. There was no attempt to take possession of the land by the respondents. Even after consolidation also the lands remained to be in their possession and enjoyment and recorded as owners.