RAM DHARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiffs Ram Dhari and others have filed the present R. S. A. and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 18. 9. 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind, who accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 28. 9. 1991 passed by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Narwana and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration and injunction as prayed for.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-appellants Ram Dhari and others filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction, alleging that they had been cultivating the suit land for the last more than 40 years without payment of Batai and Chakota, which land was previously owned by Nathu, Neki and Panna sons of Sheo Ram, resident of village Ghaso Kalan. It was pleaded that the whereabouts of these brothers have not been known for the last 40 years and as such they are dead in the eyes of law. The plaintiffs have become the owners and in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession, it was also alleged that Nathu, Panna and Neki are being shown in the revenue record as owners and this entry is illegal, null and void and is liable to be corrected. The case further pleaded by the plaintiffs-appellants is that the order dated 16. 6. 1986 passed by the Collector, District Jind, vide which the suit land is ordered to be vested in the State by way of escheat is also bad in the eyes of law and is null and void and it does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs in spite of the fact that the Collector admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs by way of adverse possession but refused to sanction mutation in their favour. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs-appellants that defendant No. 1 was adamant to take possession of the suit land and wanted to dispossess the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants. The defence of defendant No. 1 i. e. , the State of Haryana, was that the plaintiffs never became the owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. This land was previously owned by Neki, Panna and Nathu, whose whereabouts are not known for the last 40 years and they had died a civil death. After the death of these persons the State became the owner and in possession of the suit land and order regarding escheat was passed on 16. 6. 1986 in a legal manner. Defendant No. 1 also alleged that defendant No. 2 Jeet Ram had no right, title or concern with the suit land. Also it was the stand of defendant No. 1 that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable; that they have no cause of action; that they have no locus standi to file the suit and that the suit is bad for want of notice Under Section 80 C. P. C.