SHEO LAL Vs. RAMPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, First class Rewari District Gurgaon, dismissing their suit.

(2.) SHEO Lal and others brought a suit against Ram Pat and ten others for a declaration that they and defendants 8 to 11 were entitled to two-third share and defendants 1 to 7 one-third share in the agricultural land measuring 515 Bighas 3 biswas, comprised in Khewat No. 16 in village Akera, District Gurgaon, and that the entries made in the revenue papers showing defendants 1 to 7 as owners of one-half share, were wrong. The allegations of the plaintiffs were that according to their ancestral shares, they and defendants 8 to 11 had two-third share, while defendants 1 to 7 one-third share in the said land. They had been in possession of the abovementioned joint land and the Khewat was also joint. Defendants 1 to 7 had cleverly, in collusion with the Revenue Authorities, got their share entered in the revenue papers as one-half, instead of one third, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 11. No dispute ever arose between the parties up to the year 1958, when consolidation proceedings started in the village. Then after inspection of the revenue records, it came to light that defendants 1 to 7 had got their share recorded as one-half, instead of one-third, and on that basis they were asking the Consolidation Authorities to allot land to them. That necessitated the filing of the present suit.

(3.) THE suit was resisted only by defendants 1 to 7. They controverted the allegations made by the plaintiffs and pleaded that they had been in possession of the land to the extent of one-half share for the last more than 50 years as full owners. They were shown as owners in the revenue papers. Even if they were not found to be so to that extent, but as they had been in possession for the last more than 12 years as owners, they had become so by adverse possession as well. Their case was that mutual partition took place between the parties long ago and they had been in possession of their respective lands. It was denied that the plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 11 had two-third share in the suit land. They had only half belonged to defendants 1 to 7. The land in dispute was not joint of the parties, mutual partition having taken place between them long ago. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.