KARTAR SINGH Vs. JAMNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mukerian dated 07.10.2011, whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that respondent No. 1-plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 48 Kanals 07 Marlas, as detailed in the head note, situated in Village Tohlu, Hadbast No. 607, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur and the entries in the Jamabandis are null, void, illegal, ineffective and, therefore, liable to be set aside and ignored for all purposes and to be corrected in the name of the plaintiff with an alternative suit for joint possession of the land, stated above, has been decreed by holding her to be the daughter of Amru and, therefore, the suit has been decreed to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in joint possession of land measuring 48 Kanals 07 Marlas out of 167 Kanals 19 Marlas and the Jamabandis are null and void, ineffective and liable to be corrected. The appeal, which was preferred by the appellant-defendant has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 04.02.2013.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by the Courts below that respondent No. 1-plaintiffJamna Devi is the daughter of Amru @ Amar Singh is not correct as the birth certificate, which has been produced by the respondents, as also the register in support thereof is not properly maintained and, therefore, could not have been relied upon to return such a finding. He asserts that respondent No. 1-plaintiff has been sleeping over her claim and the suit itself is barred and in any case, the possession of the appellant-defendant is open and hostile against the respondents-plaintiff since the year 1974 and, therefore, in the light of the said fact that they are in adverse possession over the property, are now the owners of the same. Assertion has also been made that the present appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments and decree passed by the Courts below.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant but find myself not in agreement with, what has been asserted by the counsel.