(1.) THIS is defendants' regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30th March, 1989 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Faridkot by which appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated October 27,1987 was dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts as noticed by the Addl. District Judge are as under: - Jai Singh etc. filed a suit against Dhan Kaur etc. for the declaration that the plaintiffs have become the owners in possession of the land bearing khasra Nos. 83/23/2 (5-6), 24 (7-7), 25 (0-18), measuring 13 Ks. lim. and 3/4th share of land measuring 34 Ks. 7. m. out of 45 K. 16 M. out of land bearing Khasra Nos. 26/21 (8-0), situated in the revenue estate of village Rode, tehsil Moga, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78, on the ground that Rulia son of Fauja Singh sold mortgagee rights in respect of the part of the suit land in favour of Dasondha Singh son of Vir Singh, prcdecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs vide mutation No. 1449 dated 19. 5. 1920, Santa Singh son of Rulia Singh mortgaged with possession some of the suit land in favour of Dasondha Singh predecessor of the plaintiffs vide mutation No. 4005 dated 29. 5. 1946. The present suit land was carved out from the. land which was mortgaged by Rulia Singh and Santa Singh during consolidation. Dasondha Singh has died and he has been succeeded by the Plaintiffs. Santa Singh died leaving behind Chanda Singh, his only son of Chand Singh who died on 21. 7. 1982, leaving behind Dhan Kaur defendant No. 1 as widow of his pre-deceased son Malkiat Singh. It is alleged by the defendant No. 2 Jang Singh that Chanda Singh executed a Will in his favour. Defendants Nos. 3 to 5 allege themselves to be the vendees of a part of the suit land on the basis of alleged sale deed. So, the defendants 3 to 5 have been made as a party. It is alleged that the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by lapse of time as the defendants/mortgagors have lost their right of redemption. The plaintiffs filed a suit which was decreed on 12. 11. 1982 and it was held that the plaintiffs have become. the owners of the suit land by lapse of time and that suit was decreed against Dhan Kaur only defendant No. 2 on the basis of alleged Will and defendants No. 3 and 5 on the basis of alleged sale deed, started denying the ownership of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to admit their claim but they did not, so the plaintiffs filed the suit.
(3.) DEFENDANT No. 2 Jang Singh contested the suit on the ground that previously Chanda Singh was in possession of the land for the last more than 30 years. Their possession was open, hostile and adverse to whole of the world and so, he has become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. The suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest never remained in possession of the suit land and Chanda Singh executed valid will in his favour.