BAKHTAWAR AND ORS. Vs. RAM PARTAP AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I intend to dispose of two Regular Second Appeals No.1895 and 1920 of 2014 as the common questions of law and facts involved in both the appeals are the same, which have been filed by the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.49 of 2003 (hereinafter called "Suit No.1") and defendant/counter-claimants in Civil Suit No.473 of 2006 (hereinafter referred "Suit No.2"). The facts are being taken from RSA No.1895 of 2014. It would be apt to give brief preface of the matter.

(2.) Bakhtawar, Sultan sons of Manbhar son of Nanga and Sumer son of Harlal son of Nanga filed Suit No.1 claiming declaration that they have become owners of land measuring 23 Bighas 4 Biswas by way of adverse possession as per jamabandi for the year 1934-35, now measuring 103 Kanals 1 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of Village Balroad. It was pleaded that the suit property was owned by Mangtu alias Peela and Shriya sons of Jahar, who was the ancestor of defendants Ram Partap etc. The land was being cultivated by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants, namely, Manbhar and Harlal sons of Nanga in the capacity of owners, i.e., Bavajah Malkiyat Khud and is being cultivated for the last more than 100 years, which is in the knowledge of the defendants and their ancestors and the whole world. The continuous and uninterrupted possession is without payment of rent. The aforementioned suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8, i.e., Ram Partap, Natthu Ram sons of Mangtu @ Peela son of Jahar, Ramesh, Saroj and Naraini, widow of Attar Singh and the remaining defendants were proceeded ex-parte. As per the averments made in the written statement, it has been stated that the ancestors of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants have been in possession of the suit property, but the possession was only permissive one and the claim of adverse possession is not only illegal, but unjustified in the eyes of law, in essence, the suit was not maintainable.

(3.) It was further stated that the suit property along with other property was received in inheritance by Jahar after the death of his adoptive father. After the death of Jahar, his sons Mangtu and Shriya became the owners of the suit property. Shriya died unmarried and, thus, did not have any issue and the entire property vested in Mangtu and, thus, successors-ininterest of Mangtu are the owners of the suit property. Nanga, father of Manbhar and Harlal, was also the resident of Village Kothal, District Mahendergarh, who was nearer to the family of Jahar and had small cultivable land and were not able to earn their livelihood and this fact was known to Jahar, who gave the permissive possession of the suit property, thus, the possession of the plaintiffs was not of the owner, but only permissive one.