BHALE AND OTHERS Vs. BHALLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall decide Regular Second Appeal No.454 of 1992 (Bhale son of Shri Kishan Sahai and others v. Bhalle son of Shri Nawab Ali) and Regular Second Appeal No.2344 of 1991 (Bhalle son of Shri Nawab Ali v. Bhale son of Shri Kishan Sahai) as both these appeals are directed against the same judgment dated 1.10.1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Rohtak. However, the facts are taken from Regular Second Appeal No.454 of 1992 and the parties shall be referred to as per their status in this appeal.

(2.) Bhalle son of Shri Nawab Ali respondent filed suit for declaration that he was owner in possession as Dohlidar of land measuring 9 Kanals 8 Marlas comprised in Khewat No.298/284, Khatauni No.466, Rectangle and Killa No.19/4(8-0) and 19/5/1 (1-8) and of land measuring 27 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.188/186, Rectangle and Killa Nos.18/1(8-0), 18/2(8-0), 18/3/1(4-12), and 19/5/2 (6-10) situated in village Dhamar, Tehsil and District Rohtak. This land was in possession of his fore fathers as Dohlidars and after their death the respondent came in possession as Dohlidar. Mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in his favour on 3.12.1954. It was further pleaded that Bhale son of Shri Kishan Sahai, appellant posed himself as the respondent in collusion with the revenue staff and got recorded his name in the revenue record and has been shown in cultivating possession as Dohlidar instead of the respondent. Neither appellant No.1 nor the other appellants were either owners or in cultivating possession of the suit land. Injunction was also prayed that the appellants be restrained from disturbing his possession over the suit land.

(3.) The version of the appellants, as pleaded in the written statement was that land comprised in Killa Nos.19/4 and 19/5/1 was received by the appellant No.1 as Dohlidar which was given to him by the proprietors of Pana Roran of village Dhamar in lieu of his services rendered to be proprietors in the year 1947 and since then he was coming in cultivating possession of the suit land. In the alternative, the appellants claimed adverse possession over this land. However, regarding other land measuring 27 Kanals 9 Marlas comprised in Rectangle and Killa Nos. 18/1 (8-0), 18/2(8-0), 18/3/1(4-12) and 19/5/2 (6-10), their case was that father of appellant No 1 has been declared to be tenant over the suit land vide judgment dated 29.2.1968 and since then the predecessors of appellant No.1 and thereafter the appellants are coming in possession of this land without the payment of any rent or batai to any one. Therefore, they have become owners by adverse possession. It was denied if the ancestors of the respondent were Dohlidars or in possession of the suit land. Legal objections were also pleaded Other allegations were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed.