KARAN SINGH Vs. SURTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession stating that the suit land was purchased by his grand father Des Raj while father of the defendants was cultivating a part of the suit land under the plaintiff but subsequently, the defendants were entered as owners to the extent of l/4th share and they filed an application for partition on the basis of mutation No. 1675 dated 28.2.1948 which was sanctioned without knowledge of the plaintiff. The suit was contested with the averment that ancestors of the defendants had l/4th share in the suit which was admitted by the plaintiff and his mother in the presence of Giani, Lambardar which led to mutation dated 28.2.1948 and the defendants have continued in possession.

(2.) The trial court dismissed the suit Under Issue Nos. l and 2, it was held that mutation No. 1674 dated 28.2.1948 was binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff relied upon jamabandi for the year 1940-41 Ex. P-10 as well as Jamabandi for the year 1928-29 showing Ram Sarup, father of the plaintiff to be the owner but Hargobind was shown to be in possession as "BINA LAGAN BAVAJAH AAPAS DARI". There was entry dated 5.7.1947 to the effect that plaintiff and his brother made a statement in presence of Lambardar that names of Chandgi and Bhagwana sons of Shiv Ram, be entered as owners of l/4th share for which they were already in possession and on that basis,, mutation dated 28.2.1948 was sanctioned. Thereafter, in the jamabandi for the year 1956 Ex. PS, names of defendants as owners were also recorded. The trial Court further observed that presence of plaintiff was shown at the time of recording mutation of inheritance of Jugti dated 5.1.1957 Ex. C-1 when plaintiff was entered as owner of 3/4th share.

(3.) The lower appellate court affirmed the finding of the trial court and upheld dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff. Hence this appeal.