GURDEV KAUR Vs. RALLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Ralla Singh sought a declaration regarding the land, in dispute, to the effect that he is the owner-in-possession thereof and that the defendants Gurmukh Singh and Lakhbir Singh (who were then minors) sons of Darbara Singh, deceased, and their mother Smt. Gurdev Kaur, defendant No. 1, through whom they were represented, had no right or title in the suit property. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that he had no male issue of his own, so he adopted Darbara Singh son of his real brother, Kartar Singh as his son vide the adoption deed dated the 21st of November, 1945; that said Darbara Singh died 2-1/2 years back; that the defendants were claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit-land and basing their claim on a mutation No. 3557 dated 6th March, 1956, entered in favour of Darbara Singh, deceased; that Darbara Singh as a result of the said adoption deed, could not have acquired any ownership rights on the land. The plaintiff also maintained that he was also in cultivating possession of the suit land and was, therefore, entitled to the declaration claimed by him.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and it was not maintainable in that form; that the plaintiff was estopped by his acts and conduct from filing the suit; that he had got no locus standi to file the suit; that he had got no locus standi to file the suit; that Darbara Singh, husband of defendant No. 1 and father of minors-defendant Nos. 2 and 3 was the owner-in-possession of the suit property before his death since the time of his adoption and after the death of Darbara Singh, defendants had become the owner by inheritance and were in possession of the suit land as his legal heirs. It was also alleged that the land had been gifted away orally by the plaintiff to Darbara Singh, deceased, at the time of adoption; that a mutation to that effect was sanctioned on 6th March, 1956, which was to his knowledge and he was party to that; that the defendants remained in possession of the suit land as owners from 1956 to 1971 and the plaintiff never challenged the ownership or possession of Darbara Singh; that the defendants had become owners in possession by oral gift as also by way of adverse possession.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-