BALBIR SINGH Vs. ONKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 15/1/2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, the original judgment and decree passed by the trial court, decreeing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff, have been reversed and the suit filed by the appellants has been ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts, as involved in the present appeal, are that the originally land was owned by one Rasia Ram. He had four sons and four daughters. The appellant-plaintiff is son of Kirpal Singh son of Rasia Ram. Whereas, the defendants are sons of Beli Ram son of Rasia Ram. In the first instance, after death of Rasia Ram the names of the plaintiff, as well as, the respondents were reflected in the revenue records. The jamabandi for the year 1981-82 contained the name of the appellant as co-sharer with the respondents in the land left behind by Rasia Ram. However, in subsequent years, the name of the appellant was deleted from the jamabandis for the years 1986-1992. The appellant was never given any notice before effecting these changes in the revenue records. The respondents tried to alienate the suit land on the basis of the entries in the jamabandi, damaging the interest of the appellant. Hence, the suit was filed by the appellant, seeking therein a decree to the effect that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 2/12 share out of joint khata of the holding of the land left behind Rasia Ram: and a further injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land till partition of the same. Only defendants No.l and 2 contested the suit. The defendants No.3 to 5 supported the case of the plaintiffs and the remaining defendants were proceeded ex parte.

(3.) The trial court had decreed the suit filed by the appellant and declared that the appellant-plaintiffs are the owner to the extent of 2/12 share out of joint khata land and further; restrained the respondents from alienating the suit land till partition. Accordingly the entries in the jamabandi for the years 1986-1992 were declared to be illegal and null and void not affecting the rights of the appellant. The respondents-defendants No.l and 2 preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree. The lower appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court; and has ordered dismissal of the suit.