JIWAN Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGULAR Second Appeals Nos. 1991 of 1979 and 790 of 1980 involve common questions of law and fact, therefore, both these appeals shall be decided by a common judgment.

(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of Regular Second Appeal No. 1991 of 1979 may be, briefly, recapitulated. Land measuring 9 Bighas 9 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 541 situated in the revenue estate of Village Khabra Kalan, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar, is being cultivated by Jiwan son of Hukma. Prior to Jiwan, his predecessors-in-interest had been cultivating the said land, on a nominal rent under Moman etc. Jiwan had filed a suit for declaration of Marusi rights which was decreed by the Revenue Court, vide order dated December 7, 1962 and he was declared Marusi tenant over the land in suit. After consolidation, Jiwan plaintiff was allotted land bearing Khasra No. 25/2 (4-0) of Rectangle No. 39 and Khasra Nos. 5 (7-8), 6 (7-8), 7/1 (4-16) of Rectangle No. 64, total area measuring 23 kanals 12 Marias in lieu of his old Khasra No. 541. , Jiwan was settled as tenant under Gulzar Singh son of Ram Ditta, Kunda son of Norang, Gurdial son of Bhadan Singh, and Jiwan plaintiff is in possession of those Khasra Numbers in the capacity of occupancy tenant. It is alleged that he has become absolute owner of the Khasra Numbers which were in his possession as occupancy tenant. His case further is that Ram Sarup son of Moman got a fictitious sale deed No. 1432, dated October 24, 1996 executed and registered in his favour from said Gulzar Singh, Kunda and Gurdial Singh. On the basis of said sale deed, Ram Sarup got Mutation No. 1445 sanctioned in his name. According to Jiwan plaintiff, the sale deed and the mutation have no adverse effect whatsoever on his rights. On the above said averments, Jiwan filed a suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that he was in possession of the suit land as owner and that registered sale deed No. 1432, dated October 24, 1966 and Mutation No. 1445 in favour of Ram Sarup defendant have no adverse effect whatsoever on his rights.

(3.) PLAINTIFF filed Replication. He reiterated all the averments contained in the plaint and controverted those contained in the written statement.