DULI CHAND Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' second appeal challenging the order of the Court below vide which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Jaswant Singh has been decreed for declaration to the effect that he is owner in joint possession of 1/4th share in land measuring 148 Kanals 12 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Manuwas, tehsil Nuh, district Gurgaon and he is further entitled to get his share partitioned being a co-sharer.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Jaswant Singh and Smt. Chameli filed the present suit against Duli Chand and three others for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are in joint possession of 1/2 share of the suit land mentioned in para 1 of the plaint and thus entitled to get their share partitioned. The allegations made in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are joint owners in possession as co-sharers of 1/2 share in the agricultural land measuring 148 Kanals 12 Marlas as described in para 1 of the plaint situated in village Manuwas, tehsil Nuh, district Gurgaon; that the land in question was Shamilat Patti Jatan Thulla Gulabi and the plaintiffs were in possession as co-sharers of 1/2 share; that the plaintiffs sold land of their Malkana Kabja without their share in Thulla Gulabi to the defendants,' that plaintiff No. 1. too sold his 1/4th share of the land in favour of Duli Chand, defendant No. 1 vide mutation No. 210 decided on 16.9.1960 while plaintiff No. 2 Smt. Chameli sold her 1/4th share to defendants Nos. 2 to 4 vide mutation No. 211 decided on 16.9.1960. It was alleged that both of them had got share in Shamilat Thulla Gulabi; that they were in joint possession of their share of the land in Shamilat Thulla Gulabi uptil now. Since the defendants disputed the same, the present suit was filed for partition of land.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the suit was time- barred; that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit; that the defendants had become owners in possession by way of adverse possession; that the plaintiffs were estopped by their acts and conduct from filing the present suit and that the suit had not been properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. It was also alleged that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was alleged that it was incorrect that the plaintiffs had not sold their rights in Shamilat Thulla Gulabi along with the land in the year 1958 and that since 1958, the defendants were in possession of the suit land as owners and that is why the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :