KIRPA Vs. DHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 - Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they along with appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 3 (defendants No. 5 and 6 respectively) were the co-owners in possession of the agricultural land, measuring 55 Kanals 15 Marlas, detail of which was given in their plaint. It was their case that they had become owners by way of adverse possession, which was continuous, hostile and open to the owners, i.e., appellants No. 2 to 5 (defendants No. 1 to 4). It was case of respondents No. 1 and 2 that they are in possession of the property in dispute along with their brothers for the last more than 100/125 years. They had been cultivating the land as owners. Their possession was open and hostile. At no time, any lease amount etc. was paid to respondents No. 2 to 5. It is an admitted fact that the parties are related to each other. To show their relationship, admitted pedigree table reads thus : See Table Below

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 1 and 2 had stated in their plaint that about 100/125 years back, due to financial hardships, Shri Ram Nath and Nand Lal, fore-fathers of respondents No. 2 to 5, left village Kavi, for ever, to settle in village Khotpura to earn their livelihood. It was their further case that above named persons never asserted their right over the land in dispute and allowed their fore-fathers to cultivate the same without payment of any rent. Ram Nath and Nand Lal had actually relinquished their rights in the aforesaid land. Even at the time of consolidation proceedings, which took place in the year 1961-62, they never asserted their right and at that time, in lieu of old Khasra numbers, new Khasra numbers were allotted so far as land in dispute is concerned. It was further averred that village Khotpura was situated only at a distance of 12 Kms., even then at no time, any attempt was made by respondents No. 2 to 5/their fore-fathers to get back possession of the land in dispute and cultivate the same. In all Jamabandis, throughout, for the last more than 100 years, they continued to be shown as absentee land owners. It was further stated by respondents No. 1 and 2 that appellant No. 1 and respondent No. 3, out of their greed and with a view to get more share in the land in dispute, purchased one plot in the year 1977 from appellants No. 2 to 5 and thereafter they got one collusive decree passed, regarding the entire land, in their favour on July 28, 1980, during pendency of this suit. Due to that, plaint was amended and challenge was also laid to the sale deed and collusive decree, referred to above. By stating above mentioned facts, it was prayed that declaration of ownership be issued in favour of the plaintiffs and they be declared as owners to the extent of their share in the property in dispute.

(3.) APPELLANT No. 1 filed a separate written-statement, wherein he admitted sale of one plot to him by other appellants and also collusive decree in his favour. He further pleaded that appellants No. 2 to 5 were owners of the property in dispute.