SUKH RAM AND OTHERS Vs. RAJESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani whereby appeal preferred by Rajesh and others against the judgment and decree dated 7.8.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Loharu (hereinafter to be referred as "the trial court") has been allowed, judgment and decree of the trial court have been set aside and suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs claiming themselves to be owner in possession in equal share of suit land, detailed in head note of the plaint, as per jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 on the basis of occupancy rights, has been dismissed.

(2.) As per case set up by the appellants/plaintiffs, suit land was owned by ancestors of the defendants/respondents. The suit land was given to ancestors of the appellants/plaintiffs on tenancy by ancestors of the defendants for the purpose of cultivation and nominal rent @ Rs. 24/- per year was agreed. It was also agreed between the parties that ancestors of the defendants will not eject ancestors of the plaintiffs from the suit land. Land was made cultivable by spending huge amount. Previously, ancestors of the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession and now the plaintiffs are in cultivating possession of the suit land in the capacity of gair marusi tenant on payment of nominal rent without any interruption. They have perfected their rights of occupancy and have become owners of suit land as per Occupancy Tenant (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 ( in short "the 1953 Act"). The names of defendants have wrongly been continuing in the revenue record in the column of ownership and entries in the revenue record are liable to be corrected in the name of appellants/plaintiffs.

(3.) Defendants No. 4 and 5 namely Ramphal and Rejesh filed the written statement taking preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit, locus standi and cause of action. It has been averred that the plaintiffs and proforma defendant never cultivated the suit land. Land measuring 6 kanal 12 marlas was purchased by the defendants from original owners. The revenue entries showing possession of ancestors of the plaintiffs are wrong and father of the plaintiffs died ten years ago. The plaintiffs do not fulfill conditions of Sections 5 and 8 of the 1953 Act.