LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-638

KISHAN AND OTHERS Vs. GODHA RAM AND OTHERS

Decided On January 21, 2016
Kishan And Others Appellant
V/S
Godha Ram And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad whereby the appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad was dismissed.

(2.) Appellants-Plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are absolute owners in possession of the suit land and the revenue entries showing the defendants as mortgagees and the plaintiffs as Gair Marusi on 1/2 batai are wrong, illegal and liable to be deleted.

(3.) As per the case of the plaintiffs, they are absolute owner in possession of the agriculture land measuring 6 kanals 13 marlas comprised of Khewat No.77, Khatauni No.92, Rect. No.13, Killa No.24/2 situated within the revenue estate of Village Shahpur Khurd, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad vide jamabandi for the year 2004-2005. That the plaintiffs have been recorded as owners/mortgagors in respect of the suit land and defendants have been recorded as mortgagees. The plaintiffs have never delivered the actual physical possession of the suit land to the defendants at any time and the revenue entering showing the plaintiffs as Gair Marusi under the mortgagees are contrary to the facts and law because the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest have always remained owners in possession of the suit land but entries have been wrongly recorded in the revenue record. The defendants had never tried to take any physical possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs or their predecessorsin-interest nor they ever collected any rent/batai from the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest. The period for limitation for taking possession of the suit land by the defendants had also expired. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land and they are entitled for getting the revenue entries corrected. Hence this suit.