ISHWAR DAYAL Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS purchased land comprised of Khasra Nos. 1588 and 1589 situated in the area of village Gannaur, Tehsil and District Sonepat, vide sale deed dated 24. 4. 1950. Consolidation of holdings took place in the village and land measuring 7 Kanals - 2 Marias bearing Khasra Nos. 509 and 511 was allotted to them in lieu of their old holding. Through a registered gift deed, they transferred 2 Kanals - 13 Marias out of the said land in favour of Mandir Sanatan Dharam Sabha of which Ram Gopal was the Manager at the relevant time. The said Ram Gopal in collusion with the lower revenue staff got himself entered as co-sharer in possession of 2 kanals-17 Marias i. e. 1/3rd share of the total holdings, in the record of rights. So, a decree of declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of land measuring 4 Kanals 9 Marias, fully described in the head note of the plaint and in the alternative, a decree for possession was sought. During the pendency of the suit, Ram Gopal defendant No. 1 having died, his legal representatives defendants No. 1-A to 1-J were brought on the record. Defendant No. 2 being transferee from Ram Gopal was also arrayed as party.

(2.) THE case of the contesting defendants is that Ram Gopal was in possession as owner of 1/3rd share to the total land from the year 1952 to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their predecessors but they never objected to the same. Defendant No. 2 had purchased the land in dispute from Ram Gopal by way of registered sale deed dated 24. 1. 1978 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 20,000/-, after having verified from the record that the title of Ram Gopal was sound. It was also contended that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land for the last 12 years and hence the same was barred by limitation. Basing reliance on mutation No. 2900, it was averred on their behalf that 1/3 share of the whole of the land was transferred in favour of Ram Gopal by means of valid gift by Balwant Singh, Jog Raj and Yado Raj and possession was also delivered to him. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal which was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide his judgment and decree dated 16. 9. 1985. 6. It is that judgment and decree of the first appellate Court which has been appealed against by the plaintiffs and which requires my examination of its sustainability.