KURU RAM Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for a declaration that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 13 Kanals 17 Marias was decreed by the learned trial Court. The appeal filed by defendant No. 1 having been dismissed by the learned appellate Court, he has come to this Court through the present second appeal.

(2.) IN view of the fairly long history of litigation, a few facts deserve to be noticed. Dev Raj was the original owner of the land in dispute. On August 22, 1955, he sold this land to Hukam Chand. Moti Ram, the father of the plaintiff-respondents, filed a suit for possession by pre-emption. On April 16, 1957, the suit was decreed. A copy of the decree sheet is Exhibit P-21. In execution of this decree, the possession of the suit land was delivered to Moti Ram vide report, a copy of which is on record as Exhibit P-1. In spite of that, appellant Kaura Ram got an entry made in the revenue record that he was the owner of the land in dispute and was in cultivating possession thereof. Having come to know of this entry, Moti Ram filed an application on November 3, 1959, for correction of the Khasra Girdawari. Vide order dated March 20, 1961, a copy of which is on record as Exhibit D-2, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dismissed this application. Moti Ram then filed a civil suit for possession of the land. The trial Court dismissed the suit. He filed an appeal. Vide judgment dated May 23, 1963, the appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court. A copy of the decree sheet is on record as Exhibit P-17. The present appellant filed Regular Second Appeal No. 609 of 1963. Vide judgment dated December 17, 1963, A. N. Grover, J. (as his Lordship then was) dismissed the appeal. A copy of this judgment is on record as Exhibit P-3. Thereafter, actual physical possession of a part of the land in dispute was delivered to Moti Ram vide report dated May 22, 1964. Possession of the remaining land was delivered on June 12, 1964. Copies of these reports are on record as Exhibits P-5 and P-4, respectively.

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed nine issues. All the issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff - respondents. It was held that they were owners in possession of the suit property. The plea that he had become owner by adverse possession as raised by the defendant-appellant was rejected. It was held that the suit was within limitation. All the findings recorded by the learned trial Court having been affirmed by the Additional District Judge, the defendant has filed the present second appeal.