DESHA Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs Randhir Singh and others filed a suit for possession of 1/3rd share in the land measuring 82 kanals situated at village Julehara on the allegations that it was previously owned and possessed by Moman who turned himself as Sanyasi and died in the year 1972. After his death, mutation No. 494 in respect of the land in dispute was wrongly sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 1 and Jai Singh son of Jaati deceased in equal shares. Mohinder and Rajinder i.e. defendant-set No. 2 are the legal heirs of Jai Singh son of Jaati. It was alleged in the suit filed that at the time of opening of the succession of the property of Moman deceased, Nafe Singh son of Maru father of the plaintiffs was alive and Nafe Singh died two years prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs raised a plea that they are the legal heirs of Nafe Singh who was equally entitled to get a share in the suit land along with Jai Singh and Mesa to the extent of 1/3rd share each in the property of Moman but the name of defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant set No. 2 were wrongly mentioned in the said mutation although these defendants along with Nafe Singh father of the plaintiffs, come in the category of second class heirs. The said mutation was pleaded to be illegal, null and void and merely a paper transaction and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. It was specifically pleaded that after Moman renounced the world and became Sanyasi, the plaintiffs came into cultivating possession of the suit land and their possession ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession and the remaining 2/3rd share of land was being cultivated by the fore-fathers of defendant-set Nos. 1 and 2. It was further pleaded that about six months prior to the filing of the suit defendant-set Nos. 1 and 2 got their names entered in the khasra girdawri in collusion with the revenue officials in order to dispossess the plaintiffs from their respective shares of the suit land and that on the basis of the aforesaid mutation and by taking advantage of his name therein, defendant No. 1 suffered a decree dated 9.2.1988 in favour of defendant set No. 3 in respect of half share of defendant set No. 1. It was last pleaded that defendants were repeatedly asked to admit the claim of the plaintiffs on the strength of the fact that they were legal heirs of Nafe Singh and were thus entitled to 1/3rd share of the land and the possession thereof also, but their refusal in that behalf gave rise to the suit.

(2.) Defendants admitted in the written statement that Moman inherited the property from his father Dilva and he died issueless. However, they raised a plea that Thambu had two wives, namely Phulla and Smt. Bhago. Sada Nand, Gangli and Sandal are the sons of Smt. Phulla whereas Buta, Harbhaj and Dilva are the sons of Smt. Bhago who had been living separately for the last many years. It was alleged that land of Moman was previously cultivated by Hazari, Jaati and Har Lal and the defendants became owners in possession of the suit land during the life time of Moman. It was thus pleaded that they are the legal heirs of Moman and mutation No. 494 was sanctioned in their favour in the presence of the plaintiffs and their father. The said mutation was pleaded to be illegal, null and void and merely a paper transaction and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs.

(3.) Learned trial court after appreciating, the evidence led by the parties and considering the matter, decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs, thereby sic that the plaintiffs were entitled to get possession of 1/3rd share in the suit land equally with defendant set Nos. 1 and 2 and that the decree dated 9.2.1988 sic by defendant set No. 1 in respect of their alleged half share was illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction. The suit was held to have been sic within the period of limitation. Suit was accordingly decreed, by judgment and decree dated 4.12.1991. Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed by learned District Judge, Find and this is how the present appeal has been filed by the defendants.