SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. SUKHWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellant in both the appeals. The appeals arise out of the same suit in which the defendant had filed an application for counter claim treating himself to be the co-owner of the property. The plaintiffs' suit was rested on a claim that the property was classified as jumla mushtarka malkan in the revenue records and his father Harnam Singh son of Moola Singh was entered as a person who was paying rent in respect of the property. According to the plaintiffs that entry was corrected some time in the year 2008 behind the back of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have themselves got recorded their names as persons in possession in the revenue records. The counsel states that it would not bind them and sought for relief of injunction based on the entry in the name of the father and as legal heirs of the father.

(2.) The defendant claimed that he is co-sharer of the property and he was in possession of the property on the date of suit. His contention was that the entry was modified by application given to the Collector and he was entitled to be treated as a co-sharer of the property as regards the whole of the property. The trial Court dismissed the suit and found that the plaintiffs' father had admittedly died some time in the year 1985 and the entries continuing in the name of the father ought to be, therefore, taken as wrong entry. Though the trial Court found that the defendant had not proved himself that the entry in his name was made after any notice to the plaintiffs, the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by the plaintiffs dismissed the appeal but also corrected the decision of the trial Court and held that the entry which was made in the name of the defendant would require to be confirmed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffappellant would contend that the plaintiffs' possession must be presumed as continuing after the father died and read to me the evidence of the defendant where he had admitted that the entries stood in the name of plaintiffs' father till the year 2008 and that when the entries were corrected, the plaintiffs were not made aware of the same. The counsel would contend that defendant himself had admitted in evidence that the plaintiffs' father had been a co-sharer and that the plaintiffs' right to possession cannot be in any way disturbed or modified by virtue of wrong entry. The entries as having been made wrongly was literally admitted by the defendant by the fact that no notice had been given to the plaintiffs before any modification of the entries.