KULDIP SINGH AND ORS. Vs. NANKU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of RSA Nos. 1703 of 1987 and 2431 of 1987, arising out of the same judgment and decree dated 5.2.1987, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, partly decreeing the suit after modifying the judgment and decree dated 23.1.1984, passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Pathankot.

(2.) FACTS of the case are that Nanku etc. plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of land measuring 44 kanals 2 marla bearing khewat No. 1 in Red 1 min, Khewat No. 10 in Red 9 min, Khatoni No. 1, 3 and 37 bearing khasra Nos. 95, 94, 96 and 105 as per Jamabandi for the year 1976 -77 situated in village Tahara, H.B. 382 Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. Plaintiffs also prayed for decree of possession of the suit land along with the consequential relief for recovery of Rs. 5000/ - on account of damages for use and occupation of the said land.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 in the written statement took the preliminary objections that suit for declaration has not been filed within three years and is time barred. It was claimed that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs as no order dated 20.4.1973 was passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation. Further plea was taken that defendants have become owners by way of adverse possession. It was stated that some order was passed by the Additional Director Consolidation on 20.4.1963 and some changes were ordered. Mutation No. 144 of 3.3.1966 was sanctioned but the possession was not changed. Parties continued to possess their land as before and are in possession as owners without any interruption and have become owners by adverse possession. Defendants also denied that they took possession of the land belonging to the plaintiffs and that the same have been acquired by the Government and that they have received any compensation. The sales made by them were affirmed to be correct. It was stated that defendant Nos. 4 to 13 are bona fide purchasers for consideration and without notice. Defendant No. 3, while taking the same plea as by defendant No. 1, stated that defendant No. 3 is in possession of the suit land as tenant. He is not attorney of defendant Nos. 1 and 2.