GURNAM KAUR Vs. BACHITTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Gurnam Kaur, defendant-appellant, succeeded to the estate of her father Fateh Singh in the year 1929 on the death of her mother Smt. Ram Kaur who had succeeded to the same earlier on the death of her husband Fateh Singh. Mutation of inheritance in this regard was entered on 5th June, 1939, vide mutation No. 504, Exhibit P.7. In the year 1942, defendant-appellant Smt. Gurnam Kaur collaterally succeeded to the estate of one Smt. Chand Kaur which comprised of 8-1/2 standard Kanals of land, regarding which mutation of inheritance Exhibit P.8 was sanctioned. Plaintiff-respondent Bachittar Singh, a near collateral of Fateh Singh (as the following pedigree-table would show) was recorded as 'tenant-at-will' under Smt. Gurnam Kaur appellant on payment of Hasab Rasad Parta Dehi on account of relationship :

(2.) In the village consolidation took place and the land which stood in the revenue records in her ownership was included by the consolidation authorities in the Kurrah of the plaintiff to the extent of half and the remaining half in the Kurrah of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and her name was struck off from the ownership column. On coming to know of the said fact, she went up in appeal to the Director of Consolidation and the learned Additional Director of Consolidation, vide his order dated the 16th April, 1961, Exhibit D.1, restored her name to the ownership of the land and ordered her to be put in physical possession of the land which was done. The plaintiff immediately after the passing of the order Exhibit D.1 filed the present suit against Smt. Gurnam Kaur seeking the declaration that he was the owner of the land mentioned in the plaint and that the order of the Additional Director dated the 16th April, 1961 which cast a cloud on his rights be declared as of no consequence. Since during the pendency of the suit, Bachittar Singh plaintiff was also dispossessed of the land in question in pursuance of the order, Exhibit D.1, he amended the plaint and included therein consequential relief of possession as well.

(3.) The defendant-appellant, inter alia, resisted the suit on the ground that she perfected her title by adverse possession before the date of the filing of the suit and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any declaration of the kind sought by him.