JI KAUR, ETC Vs. BHULLAN, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five connected regular second appeals are directed against the same judgment of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak, exercising enhanced appellate powers. Counsel are agreed that this judgment will govern all the appeals which raise identical issues of law and fact.

(2.) Shrimati Bhullan, plaintiff-respondent, had brought five suits against different persons for possession of different parcels of land situated in village Sandhwal Khurd. As already noted, the facts were exactly similar, if not identical. In substance, the plaintiff's case was that the defendants in all the five suits had been forcible possession of the land without any right or title for more than 3 1/2 years. They were alleged to be trespassers and the plaintiff claimed possession of the land on the basis of her title thereto.

(3.) The defendants in contesting the suits above-said took up similar pleas. They denied the ownership of the plaintiff to the land in dispute and alleged that in any case the suits were barred by limitation. They claimed to have become owners of the land by adverse possession. The primary plea was that even if the plaintiff was at some stage the owner of the land in dispute, she had forfeited her rights when after the death of her first husband Tale Ram she performed Karewa marriage with one Risala of village Panchhi Jattan. It was categorically averred on behalf of the defendants that they were in continuous possession of the land for innumerable years and even if its was held that they were not in adverse possession of the land, they were tenants-will and the Civil Court could not eject them therefrom.