CHANAN SINGH Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal whose suit for possession of the agricultural land measuring 49 kanals 18 marlas was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed in appeal.

(2.) BATTAN Singh had two sons, named, Bantu and Chanan alias Channu alias Swarn Singh. On his death he was succeeded by his aforesaid two sons. On the death of Bantu, he was succeeded by his ***** Pritam Kaur, defendant. Pritam Kaur, defendant, re-married Channu defendant, by karewa. Thereafter, the estate which she had inherited from her Previous husband Bantu was mutated in favour of Channu. defendant Later on, the said Channu made an oral gift on September 5, 1955 of that land in favour of his mother Rattan Kaur, the widow of Battan Singh, for which the mutation was sanctioned on September B 1955, vide Exhibit p. 13. After. the said gift, Channu, defendant being the mukhtiar of his mother, Rattan Kaur the donee, sold the land measuring 49 kanals 18 marlas to Chanan Singh, son of Labh Singh, the plaintiff, vide two sale-deeds dated November 19, 1958, Exhibit P: 2 and December 14, 1958, Exhibit P. l. On the basis of the said sale deed, the plaintiff filed the present suit on August 18, 1969, for possession of the suit land, against Pritam Kanr her husband Channu and Channu's mother Rattan Kaur, defendants Nos. l, 2 and 3, respectively. In the trial Court, the suit was contested only by Pritam Kaur, defendant, whereas the other two defendants allowed the proceedings to be proceeded ex parte against them. Shrimati Pritam Kaur, defendant, resisted the snit inter alia on the ground that she was the owner of the suit land and that she never forfeited the estate on her re-marriage with Channu, defendant, as alleged in the plaint. It was further pleaded that she had been in possession of the suit land for more than twelve years and. had, thus, become its owner by verse possession. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues: l. Whether the present suit is bed for misjoinder of causes of action? 2. Whether the present suit is barred by time?

(3.) WHETHER the present suit is not maintainable in the present form?