GANESH DUTT Vs. MOLU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After going through this file, I issued notice of motion for 18th March, 1987 till which date the notices were not received back and were ordered to be awaited till 26th March, 1987. On that day counsel for the respondents sought adjournment and the case was adjourned to 8th April, 1987 for motion hearing. After hearing preliminary arguments on 8th April, 1987, both the counsel agreed that the matter can be disposed of in motion hearing as the controversy revolved around only one point. I directed the records to be summoned for the next day.

(2.) I have gone through the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties to their satisfaction for a considerable time and I consider it proper to give brief facts of this case before going to the point involved.

(3.) The plaintiff-appellants filed this suit with the averments that they and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (now represented by respondent Nos. 6 to 10), the successors-in-interest of one Kali Dutt son of Jiva Ram, who had been in possession of the suit land since 1935 till the date of his death and after expiry of 12 years beginning from Kharif 1935 said Kali Dutt had become owner of the suit property by adverse possession. The averment is that after Rabi 1961 Kali Dutt gave the land on Batai to Molu Ram defendant No. 3 (now respondent No. 1). The plaintiff-appellants sought a further declaration that decree in suit No. 232 of 1979 decided on 11th April, 1979 and decree in suit No. 3 of 1980 were collusive and were not binding on them.