CHANDGI Vs. JAI PARKASHA @ PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decrees passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 23 & 24 are owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 30K-1M, situated in village Atta.

(2.) THE plaintiffs have claimed that they are owners in possession by way of adverse possession. Consequential relief was also prayed vide which permanent injunction was sought against defendant Nos. 1 to 22 from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 23 and 24. In the alternative it was claimed that due to operation of judgment and decree in case Jai Parkash v. Mangu etc. decided on 9.12.1948, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 23 and 24 are owners in possession of 23/24th share of the above mentioned land as Jhandu and Harphool @ Phool Singh donors have died and the partition proceedings in case Chandgi etc. v. Chotto etc. in which the objections of the plaintiffs were dismissed on 10.9.1971, are illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 23 and 24.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants at the outset has challenged the finding recorded by the learned lower appellate Court on the plea that the suit as framed was not competent as the plaintiffs were not entitled to seek a declaration of ownership on the basis of adverse possession as plea of adverse possession can only be taken as defence and that has been allowed.