JUG LAL Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are in second appeal against the judgment of reversal. The plaintiffs filed suit for possession of land measuring 53 kanals 18 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Nangli, Tehsil Tohana, Distt. Hisar. Their case is that land measuring 131 kanals 1 marla comprised in Khewat No. 87 and 352 kanals and 6 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 147, as per jamabandis for the year 1979-80, situated in village Nangli, Tehsil Tohana, District Hisar was jointly owned by the parties to the suit and other co-shares. The co-sharers effected a family partition of their joint holding in 1981-82 and entered into possession of specific field numbers. The factum of private partition was reported to the revenue authorities whereupon mutation No. 771 was duly sanctioned on 19.3.1982 (Ex.Pl) with the consent and concurrence of all the earlier co-sharers without objection from any one of them. As a result thereof, land measuring 53 kanals and 18 marlas comprised in Rect. No. 111, Killas No. 6/2(8-0), 14/1/2(0-6), 14/2(5-4), 15(8-0) and Rect. No. 112, Killas No. 9/2(7-0), 10/2(7-11), 11(8-0), 12(7-8) and 13/1(2-9) (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in dispute') fell to the share of the plaintiffs. However, Jani Ram, predecessor-in-inter-est of defendants No. 1 to 6, forcibly reoccupied the land in dispute in May 1982 when it was lying vacant after the harvest of Rabi crop.

(2.) In their written statement filed by defendants No. 1 to 6, besides raising multiple technical preliminary objections, it was urged on merits that the plaintiffs were co-sharers in the land in dispute and denied the partition for want of knowledge. It was also urged that they were occupying the land in dispute as tenant gair marusi and have not forcibly occupied it.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues on 15.6.1985:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by way of family partition? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to mense profit from the defendant, if so to what amount? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD 9. Whether Sh. Jaini defendant was tenant under the plaintiffs if so to what effect? OPD. 10. Relief.