RAJ RANI Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's letters patent appeal against whom the suit for possession on the basis of title was dismissed by the trial Court, but was decreed in appeal by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The three plaintiffs, who are brothers, filed a suit for possession of plot measuring 67,450 square feet on the allegations that according to them the plot in dispute was owned by various persons and that the plaintiffs had shares as detailed in the plaint. The total share came to 8-3/4. The aforesaid shares were purchased on September 6,1898. On September 10, 1983, Jit Mal sold his three shares to Mohna Mal. On March 27, 1984, Jainti Parshad sold his one share to Mohan Mal. Ram Chand, Sondhi, Hardita and Gauri who jointly held 1-/8 shares died issueless and, therefore, their shares were inherited by Mohna Mal and Sunder as is evident from the pedigree-table reproduced in the judgment of the trial Court. In this manner, the plaintiffs claim that Mohna Mal had 7-7/8 shares out of which in September,1941, he gifted two bighas of land to Jain Sabha and since one share was equal to one bigha, he was left with the ownership of 5-7/8 shares. Out of the total suit land, the plaintiffs claim to be owners of 58,690 square feet whereas Milkhi Ram defendant No.2 who is one of the great grand children of Sunder owned 2,9,0 square feet and the rest of the land is owned by defendant No. 3 to 7 who are remaining descendants of Sunder. In the year 1959, dispute about the possession of the plot arose in which Harnek Singh, defendant-respondent, alleged that he was in possession of the same as a lessee of Milkhi Ram. Ultimately, proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, were started in which by order dated October 17, 1960, the S.D.M. found that Harnek Singh was in possession of the entire land and allowed him to continue in possession. Against the aforesaid order, the plaintiffs went in revision before the learned Session Judge who dismissed the same on February 2, 1961 vide order, Exhibit D.5. The plaintiffs filed the suit challenging the said order of the S.D.M. being illegal and null and void, but the said suit failed up to the Letters Patent Bench of this court. The said L.P.A. was dismissed on January 5, 1968. It was finally observed that the plaintiffs could file a suit for possession. Consequently, on April 17, 1968, the present suit was filed for possession which was contested by Milkhi Ram and Harnek Singh only. The pleas of adverse possession, res judicata because of the earlier suit and the suit being barred by limitation were raised. All the material issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. However, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation only.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge, the findings of the trial Court as such were not contested and were thus affirmed. It was only issue No.2 relating to limitation which was challenged. The learned Single Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the suit for possession on the basis of title was within time in view of Article 65 of the new Limitation Act. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed accordingly.