JIT SINGH Vs. BHUPINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant Jit Singh filed against the judgment and decree dated May 26, 1979, passed by the Additional District Judge IT, Hissar, whereby judgment and decree of the trial Court dated August 24, 1978 was reversed and plaintiff's suit was decreed. The trial Court bad dismissed the suit.

(2.) BHUPINDER Kaur and her two minor children, Rajpal Kaur and Sukhpal Kaur, filed the suit for declaration to the effect that decree dated March 14, 1977, passed in civil Suit No. 310 of 1976, by the Sub-Judge I Class, Fatehabad, obtained by Jit Singh defendant was illegal and void not affecting the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit land and for possession of the suit land claiming ownership and further alleging that Jit Singh had illegally dispossessed the plaintiffs on March 14, 1977, after passing of the aforesaid decree. According to the plaintiff Jit Singh defendant took benefit of entries in the revenue records which in fact were in favour of another Jit Singh and playing a fraud on the Court and obtained the decree. While contesting the suit, Jit Singh defendant claimed to be in possession of the suit land since 1964. He denied having dispossessed the plaintiffs on March 14, 1977. The decree obtained by him was a valid decree. In the replication the plaintiffs reiterated their stand. The trial Court framed the following issues on the pleadings :

(3.) ISSUES Nos. 1 and 2 were decided together. The plaintiffs were held to be the owner of the suit land but ware not held to be in possession thereof. Jit Singh defendant did not dispossess the plaintiffs after March 14, 1977 He was in possession since Rabi 1964 as tenant at will on payment of 1/3rd batai. Under issue No. 2, the decree obtained by Jit Singh was held to be valid. Hence the suit was dismissed. The lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court with respect to the statuts of Jit Singh of a tenant at will. Other findings were affirmed i. e. Jit Singh was held to be in possession since Rabi 1964 but not as a tenant. He was in permissible possession as a helper Hence the suit was decreed while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court.