PARAS RAM Vs. LACHHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts at Mandi dated 4 -9 -1985 whereby the judgment and decree passed by Senior Sub -Judge, Mandi dated 14 -4 -1983 is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff for joint possession to the extent of 4/9th share of one Mohan in the suit land is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.

(2.) At the hearing of this appeal the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised following two substantial questions of law : - (1) The true scope of presumption under section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (2) That the appellant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The facts briefly stated are these : - 3 One Mohan S/o Rewalu had half share in the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 50/230 to 233 measuring 14 -15 -17 Bighas of 1/3rd share in the land Khata Khatauni No. 52/236 measuring 0 -1 -5 Bigha in village Dhar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. Mohan had not been heard of for the last more than 35 years and thus, is presumed to have died. His wife Smt. Mathro also died on 1 -12 -1959 and her death certificate is Exhibit PA. To appreciate the relationship of the parties, with Mohan, the pedigree -table of the parties is reproduced as under : - Rawalu Durga Shankar Paras Ram Sarnu Kanshi Ram Lachhman -Krishan Kanhya -Inder Subhkaran -Thakar Das Mohan Sukh Ram Sarswani Kaushlya Padma (wife) (daughter) (daughter)

(4.) The plaintiffs have averred that they being the reversionary of Mohan inherited the suit land in respect of their own share after the death of Smt. Mathro and came into possession of it alongwith appellant -defendant No.1 (hereinafter defendant No.1), the co -sharer. It is further alleged that respondent Nos.1 to 4 (hereinafter the plaintiffs) have been illegally dispossessed from their shares in the suit land on 1 -1 -1972 by defendant No.1. Therefore, the suit for joint possession of their share came to be filed,