HARJI RAM Vs. MOHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants second appeal against whom the suit for declaration has been decreed by both the courts below.

(2.) Land bearing Khasra Nos. 486, 490 and 493 was in cultivating possession of the father and father's brother of the plaintiffs, vide jamabandi for the year 1917-18. The entry in the column of cultivation was basreh par dehi. Out of this land, the land bearing khasra No. 493, measuring 23 bighas 19 biswas vide jamabandi for the year 1945-46 continued to be in possession of the plaintiffs on similar terms. The possession continued up to the year 1957-58 whereafter there was consolidation of holdings and the land detailed in paragraph 4 of the plaint was allotted in lieu thereof. According to the plaintiffs, they and their ancestors were not liable to pay rent to anybody and, therefore, their possession had ripened into a perfect title after the lapse of 12 years. Since the defendants did not admit the claim of the plaintiffs; the present suit was filed under Order 1 Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure against all the proprietors of pana pingal. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the father, and uncle of the plaintiffs never cultivated the land, as alleged. It was owned and possessed by the parties, i.e., the plaintiffs as well as the defendants were the co-sharers therein. The land was actually cultivated by the pana pingal. The plaintiffs entered into possession of the land about 5 years back as the co-sharers and their possession remained as such. The question of being owners by adverse possession, therefore, did not arise. The trial Court found that it was proved that the defendants were the co-sharers in the suit land, but their being co-sharers did not in any manner effect the perfection of the title of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed declaring that they had become owners by adverse possession of the land measuring 131 kanals 6 marlas as detailed in paragraph 4 of the plaint. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in their favour. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have filed this second appeal in this Court.

(3.) No one is present on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents in spite of issuance of the actual date notices.