HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. SUKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 9/1/1991 passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree dtd. 31/7/1989 passed by the Trial Court.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondents herein filed the present suit averring therein that the plaintiffs and defendant No.11 were owners of agricultural land measuring 19 Kanals and 7 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Bhopani, Tehsil and District Faridabad as fully detailed in the plaint. It was the case set up that the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.11 gave this land to the father and grandfather of defendants No.1 to 10 on licence during his lifetime about 22-23 years back for sowing and harvesting the crops Bawajah Baradari. The father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendant No.11 and husband of plaintiff No.4 had died, and the plaintiffs and defendant No.11 are the legal heirs and successor-in-interest. Since they did not want to continue the defendant-appellants as licencee in the land in dispute, hence a legal notice was issued on 8/4/1986 terminating the licence. Hence, the present suit for issuance of a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant-appellants to vacate the suit land.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant-appellants who filed a joint written statement contending therein that Mandotri, the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs and defendant No.11, and the father of the defendant-appellants, namely, Bhuley, were real brothers. The land in dispute was owned by one Mathura son of Sukh Dev who had no issue. Bhuley and Mandotri had to succeed to the land but before the death of Mathura, Mandotri and Bhuley filed a suit for declaration against Mathura which was decreed on 16/3/1951 vide which Mandotri and Bhuley became owners of the suit land. During their lifetime, Mandotri and Bhuley orally partitioned the land and the suit land fell to the share of Bhuley i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-appellants and that the defendant- appellants have been cultivating the suit land thereafter continuously as owners. It was further the case that after the filing of the present suit, the defendant-appellants for the first time came to know that the suit against Mathura which was to be filed on behalf of Mandotri and Bhuley was only filed by Mandotri omitting the name of Bhuley. They also claimed ownership by way of adverse possession.