BHULLAN Vs. MAM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration and injunction instituted by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent claiming herself to be entitled to the suit property and sought to restrain the defendant from interfering with her rights therein.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the suit are that one Siriya was the last male-holder of the suit property. On his death in the year 1926, he was survived by two sons, Arjan and Mam Raj, in whose names the suit property was mutated. Nine days after the death of his father, Arjan also expired and after his death the name of his widow, Smt. Bhullan appellant, was substituted in his place. Mam Raj and Smt. Bhullan, widow of Arjan, continued to be recorded in the revenue records as co-owners in joint possession of the suit property. In the year 1963, Smt. Bhullan filed the present suit claiming herself to be the sole owner of the suit property on the allegation that Mam Raj was adopted sometime in the year 1901 by one Parbhu Lal of village Pundri and as a result of his adoption, he was transplanted in his adoptive father's family and had no right to succeed to the property of Siriya, the last male-holder, and he got himself wrongly recorded as the joint owner in possession to the extent of half share in the suit property. The defendant-respondent controverted the allegations and on their pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues -

(3.) At the very outset, it may be mentioned that before the lower appellate Court the counsel for the defendant conceded issues 5 and 5-A and the learned Counsel for the appellant before me has, therefore, addressed the arguments only in regard to issues 1 and 2. Taking issue No. 2 first, the learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the finding of the lower appellate Court on this issue is vitiated, as it has not taken into consideration the entire evidence of the plaintiff-appellant and has also misread the same. Regarding issue No. 1, the learned Counsel has urged that the period of limitation against the plaintiff-appellant will start from the date on which an overt Act, interfering with the rights of the plaintiff, is done by the defendant. It may be stated here that the lower appellate Court, on the basis of the revenue entries and Jamabandis, has come to the conclusion that the defendant was in possession of the suit property along with the plaintiff for more than twelve years.