CHETTAN KAUR Vs. MOHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for possession of the land in dispute against defendants 1 to 17. Defendants 15 to 17 admitted the plaintiff's claim; but defendants 1 to 14 set up a claim adverse to the plaintiffs. They pleaded that they had become owners of the land in dispute by adverse possession because they had been in possession of the same for more than twelve years in their own right. The trial Court held that the defendants 1 to 14 had been in possession of the land for a period of more than twelve years in their own right and, therefore, they had perfected their title to the land by adverse possession. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge and their appeal was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, who reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was Banjar land and, therefore, its possession will be of the person who holds title to it and as the plaintiffs had title to the land in dispute, there would be no question of the defendants perfecting their title to the same by adverse possession because no act of possession has been performed by the defendants. Against this decision, defendants 1 to 14 have come up in second appeal to this Court.

(2.) The rule is now firmly settled that the possession of Banjar land is deemed to be that of the true owner. There is no overt act by defendants 1 to 14 proved in this case which would show that they ousted or in any manner, interfered with the lawful possession of this land so far as the plaintiffs are concerned. The land has remained Banjar throughout. It has neither been enclosed nor tilled by the defendants. That being so, no fault can be found with the decision of the lower appellate Court. There would be no question of the defendants 1 to 14 perfecting their title by adverse possession so far as Banjar land is concerned.

(3.) That being so, I find no, force in this second appeal, the same fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.