KIRPAL SINGH Vs. AAS KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I dispose of two Regular Second Appeals Nos. 78 and 79 of 1978 filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs Sarvshri Kirpal Singh and Rachpal Singh and both the appeals have been directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-10-1982 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, who accepted two Civil Appeals filed by the two sets of defendants and set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge (trial Court), Gurdaspur, dated 30-9-1981, who decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the suit land as prayed for.

(2.) THE pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner :--

(3.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 4 to 13 filed a separate written statement and they took the objections that earlier the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed, so it was barred under Order 9 Rule 8, C. P. C. , that the suit was not maintainable in the present form and that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land. These defendants on merits admit that Bhagtu and Kharak Singh were the owners of the suit land and they had gifted two-third share of the land measuring 16 Kanals 8 Marias and the land measuring 219 Kanals 18 Marias in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5, and 2/5th share in favour of Tara Singh father of defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8, and 3/5th share in favour of Amar Singh, Dalip Singh, Makhan Singh and Bakhshish Singh vide registered gift deed dated 27-6-1964. Bhagtu is alleged to have executed a registered gift deed on 23-6-1964 of the land measuring 63 Kanals 13 Marias. The suit land was allotted in lieu of the land detailed in para 1 of the written statement during the consolidation proceedings. The donees are stated to be the owners and in possession of the land. Aas Kaur was stated to be the Pichhlag daughter of Bhagtu. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are her sons. Aas Kaur was stated to be in possession of her share and defendant Nos. 4 to 13 are in possession of the suit land. The mutation has been rightly sanctioned in favour of defendant Nos. 4 to 13 on the basis of the registered gift deed dated 27-6-1964 (Exhibit D2 ). On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed at different stages :--