TEJINDER SINGH Vs. RAM SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Mandi, dated 8th November, 1968, by which he has accepted the appeal of Ram Saran and others, defendants, and has set aside the judgment and decree of Additional Sub-Judge, Mandi, dated 27th June, 1967.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Tejinder Singh and others, appellants, had filed a suit for possession against Ram Saran and others, respondents, on the ground that Ram Saran and others, (defendants), are in illegal possession of the disputed land and that they (the appellants) are the rightful owners of the suit land. This suit was contested by Ram Saran and others and they alleged that Smt. Waziro was the owner of the property and after her death her estate was inherited by Khazan Singh grandfather of the plaintiffs-appellants to the extent of one-third share; defendants 1 to 3, i. e., sons of Puran one-third share, and defendants 4 to 6 one-third share. It may be mentioned that the present contesting respondents are defendants 1 and 3 and legal representatives of defendant 2. The appellants are the successors-in-interest of Khazan Singh because Khazan Singh is alleged to have gifted his share of the land to them. The appellants allege that the land measuring 10-13-18 bighas which belonged to Smt. Waziro and of which Khazan Singh was owner to the extent of one-third share by inheritance was got partitioned and mutation No. 219 pertaining to the partition had been sanctioned in favour of Khazan Singh, and the appellants got this disputed land measuring 3-10-19 bighas by transfer from Khazan Singh vide mutation No. 226. It is further alleged that the appellants were minors and were living with their father who was in Government Service and that taking benefit of their absence the contesting defendants 1 to 3 took forcible possession of the disputed land, without any right and that they had wrongly been recorded as non-occupancy tenants in the revenue records which entries are absolutely wrong and against facts. On .these allegations the appellants filed a suit for possession on 4-7-1964. The suit was contested by defendants 1 to 3, who in their written statement alleged that they are not in forcible possession of the suit land and that they are in possession of the land as tenants. It was further alleged that they had been in possession as tenants for the last about 30 years. After replication the following issues were framed in this case:

(3.) The Additional sub-judge, Mandi, vide his judgment, dated 27th June, 1967, decreed the suit after holding that the contesting defendants 1 to 3 were not tenants of the suit land and as a consequence it was held that their possession on the suit land is forcible.