MANGE Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs Mange and his son Jai Kishan who were successful in the trial court but have been non-suited by the lower appellate court are in second appeal.

(2.) Plaintiffs-appellants filed suit alleging that plaintiff No. 1 is owner of 14 kanals 14 marlas land being l/6th share of 88 kanals 4 marlas and plaintiff No. 2 is owner of 4 kanals 5 marlas land out of the aforesaid joint land. It was pleaded that as per jamabandi for 1967-68, plaintiff No. 1 is owner of 14 kanals 14 marlas land and Dei Chand and Desh Raj also had share of 14 kanals 14 marlas each in the aforesaid land whereas Shoe Nath had 44 kanals 2 marlas land being half share of the aforesaid joint land. Inheritance mutation nos. 1166, 1167 and 1178 regarding shares of Dei Chand, Desh Raj and Shoe Nath were sanctioned. After preparation of subsequent jamabandies mutation No. 1179 was sanctioned wherein error regarding shares of different co-sharers was committed. Share of Amar Singh (father of Ramesh defendant No. 10) and of Hari Chand was wrongly depicted as 2/3rd instead of 3/5th share. Plaintiff No. 2 also purchased 4 kanals 5 marlas land from Amar Singh aforesaid. Thus, total share of plaintiffs comes to 18 kanals 19 marlas but in the revenue record they have been depicted to be owners of 16 kanals 8 marlas. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought declaration that they are owners in possession of 18 kanals 19 marlas land. They also sought direction to defendants No. 11 and 12, State of Haryana and Patwari to correct the revenue entries.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 and 4 filed written statement which was also adopted by defendants No. 2 and 3. They pleaded that they did not get any excess share.