SOHAN LAL Vs. JAGDISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3rd May, 1999 delivered by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1993 whereby he dismissed the appeal of Defendants No.1 and 2 and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Plaintiff filed a suit claiming to be owner in possession of land measuring 2-5 bighas comprised in Khewat No. 34 min, Khatauni No. 53, Khasra No. 61 situated in village Ghumarwin. According to them the entries in the revenue record showing the Defendants to be in possession as nonoccupancy tenant are wrong, null and void. It was further pleaded that the suit land is a grass land and therefore, the entries showing Defendants No. 1 and 2 to be in possession as non-occupancy tenant is against law since no person can be a tenant of grass land. It was alleged that the Defendants have never been inducted as tenants over the suit land.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit on various grounds but on facts it was stated that Defendant No. 3 Tulsi Ram along with Bohtu Devi was owner in possession of the suit land. According to the Defendants their father Beli Ram came in possession of the suit land and brought it under cultivation after changing the nature of the land in the year 1950. Since then their father remained in possession of the suit land till the year 1960 and thereafter it was the Defendants No. 1 and 2 who were coming in peaceful, continuous and open possession of the land as land owners till date. They, therefore, claimed that they had become owners of the land by way of adverse possession. A counter claim was also filed by Defendants No. 1 and 2 and they prayed that a decree be passed declaring that they had become owners in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Defendant No. 3 supported Defendants No. 1 and 2 and stated that even before executing the gift deed of the property in question in favour of the Plaintiff the Defendants No. 1 and 2 were already in adverse possession of the same. In written statement to the counter claim the Plaintiff again denied that the Defendants were in possession of the suit land.