RAJ SINGH Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 771 of 1978, as both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment of the Additional District Judge, Hissar, dated 18.1.1978.

(2.) One Jaswant Singh was the original owner of the suit property. He died somewhere in the year 1965 leaving behind his widow Bhullan and his son Mangal Singh. Mangal Singh also died in the year 1968, leaving behind two sons, Raj Singh and Karam Singh plaintiffs. Jawant Singh had a brother Girdhala, who died leaving his widow Lado. Lado adopted Prem Singh son of Mangal Singh. Jaswant Singh, during his life time, gave certain land to Pat Ram defendant for cultivation. The land was Banjar at that time. Report to this effect was made with the Patwari in the year 1954, copy Exhibit P.4. However, no mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the said report and the same was rejected vide mutation copy Exhibit P.7. Subsequently, in the year 1955, mutation was sanctioned in favour of Pat Ram on 16.8.1955 copy Exhibit P.25. Therein, it was reported by the Patwari that Jaswant Singh had given land to Pat Ram on a tenure known as 'Adhlapi'. Later on, Pat Ram exchanged the said land given to him by Jaswant Singh with Pirthi Singh and Surjit Singh defendants on 2.4.1965. The plaintiffs Raj Singh and others filed the present suit on 18.12.1973, on the basis of their title against Pat Ram, Pirthi Singh and Surjit Singh defendants alleging that they were in illegal possession of the suit land.

(3.) The suit was contested on the ground that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit land. According to the defendants Pat Ram defendant obtained the property rights from the previous owner Jaswant Singh vide report dated 18.7.1955, on the basis of which mutation No. 1216 was sanctioned on 16.8.1955, and that Pat Ram was, therefore, fully competent to exchange the suit land with defendant Nos. 3 and 4. It was further pleaded that Prem Singh adopted son of Girdhala, by his widow Lado was competent to sell his share in favour of the defendants, and the plaintiffs have no cause of action to claim the said land under the sale deed. The trail Court found that the plaintiffs are not proved to be the owners of one half share of the land in dispute. Rather it is proved that Pat Ram defendant is owner of this one-half share of the suit land. It was further found that the story of the plaintiffs that the defendants have forcibly occupied the suit land after Rabi 1973, was not proved, rather it was proved that the defendants were in cultivating possession of the suit land much earlier to Rabi 1973. In view of these findings, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, reversed the said finding of the trial Court as regards ownership of the plaintiffs. It comes to the conclusion that the defendants claimed themselves to be the owners vide mutation copy Exhibit P.5 dated 16.8.1955, and by that time, the Transfer of Property Act, was made applicable to the State of Punjab on 1.4.1955 and since the gift deed was not registered the defendants could not claim themselves to be the owners under the said alleged gift deed. In view of that finding the plaintiffs' suit with respect to the land, of which the defendants claim to be the owners vide mutation Exhibit P. 25. was decreed. However, with respect to the suit land which was sold by Prem Singh to the defendants, the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiffs have filed the Regular Second Appeal No. 1069 of 1978 whereas the defendants have filed the Regular Second Appeal No. 771 of 1978.