WASDEV AND OTHERS Vs. HARBANS LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal directed by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgment dated 10.9.1983 passed by Sh. Gurdial Singh, Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgment dated 28.7.1980 passed by Sh. K.S. Kauldhar, Sub Judge Ist Class, Patti, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 and 6 are the owners in possession of the suit land claiming relief of permanent injunction. It is pleaded that plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Ralla Ram. The pedigree table has been given in the plaint. The suit land measuring 20 kanal 5 marlas situated in village Pahuwind was owned and possessed by Ralla Ram. He had also landlord property and houses in vilalges Weeram, Bainka and Sandhra. Ganesh Dass and Ram Kishan sons of Ralla Ram were the members of the joint Hindu Family with their father. The property was coparcenary property. Ganesh Dass was ungrateful son of his father Ralla Ram. About 95 years before filing of the suit, Ralla Ram partitioned the property by family arrangement. He gave the landed property and houses situated in village Pahuwind and Sandhara to Ram Kishan. The land situated in village Bainka was given to Ganesh Dass. The property situated in village Weeram was given to Chand Rani wife of Ram Kishan. Since then Ram Kishan, Ganesh Dass and Chand Rani have been found in possession of the property. On 18.10.1881 a writing regarding the partition of the property was also executed. Ganesh Dass and Ram Kishan had signed the documents, 60 years before the filing of the suit. Ralla Ram had died. After the death of Ralla Ram, Ganesh Dass, Ram Kishan and Chand Rani, the plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 and 6 became their heirs. The suit land firstly was in possession of Ram Kishan and after his death the plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 and 6 remained in possession as owners. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have got no concern with the suit land. About 20 years before the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 and 6 had mortgaged the land with Kundan Singh. The land has been redeemed. If the division of the property by family arrangement is not proved, even then plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest have been in possession of the land for the last 95 years. As such they have acquired the right of ownership by adverse possession. Defendant No.2 wanted to take forcible possession asserting that he had purchased some land out of the suit land from defendant No.1. The alleged sale is denied by the plaintiffs. Hence the suit.

(3.) On notice defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit raising the objection that plaintiffs were not in possession of the land comprised in khasra No. 59/10. 1 and so the suit for declaration was not maintainable. It is admitted that the suit land was owned by Ralla Ram. However, it is denied if Ralla Ram owned land in village Bainka. It is also admitted that Ganesh Dass and Ram Kishan sons of Ralla Ram had joint Hindu Family with him. It is denied if Ganesh Dass was the ungranted son of Ralla Ram or if there has been any division of the property by way of family arrangement. It is also denied if the property situated in village Pahuwind and Sandhra was given to Ram Kishan and the land situated in village Bainka was given to Ganesh Dass. It is also denied if the land situated in village Weeram came to the share of Chand Rani. Jeeta had 1/2 share in the property. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 and 6 or their ancestors, had alone sold the land situated in village Weeram and now they wanted to take forcible possession of the land situated in village Pahuwind. It is denied if any document of family arrangement was executed. It is further asserted that mutation on the basis of the said writing has not been sanctioned and if the execution of the said is proved it is a forged document. it is also asserted that the said family arrangement has not been acted upon. The land comprised in Khasra No. 59/1 and 10 was mortgaged by Jeeta with defendant No.5 for a period of ten years. In 1975 the land was redeemed and defendant No. 1 came into possession of the same. The land has been sold with defendant No.2 on 11.4.1975 and he is the bona fide purchaser for consideration of Rs. 5,500.00. Thus defendant No.2 is the owner in possession of 10 kanals of land. It is denied if the plaintiffs have acquired the right of ownership by adverse possession. The plaintiffs are alleged to be mere figure head as the suit has been got instituted by defendant No.5.