SAUJU AND ORS. Vs. GULAB SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS are in second appeal. They are aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed on 8th March, 2002, by learned Additional District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 31 -S/13 of 2001, whereby while allowing the appeal, the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 6/1 of 1995, has been reversed and as a consequence thereof the suit dismissed.

(2.) THE bone of contention in the present lis is land bearing Khasra No. 574/66/2 and 303, measuring 6 -2 bighas, situate at village Sheel, Tehsil and District Solan, HP. The appellants -plaintiffs claim themselves to be the exclusive owners in possession of the suit land in exclusion of their brother Matha, the predecessor -in -interest of the respondents, hereinafter to be referred as 'the defendants'. The suit so filed by Ghanu, Sauju, appellant -plaintiff No. 2 and Devi Saran, predecessor -in -interest of appellants No. 2 to 8, for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land and that the revenue entries showing the defendants also co -owners in possession thereof are wrong, illegal, null and void, hence inoperative against the plaintiffs. According to them, the previous owner of the suit land was one Devi Ram. He initially mortgaged the same with the plaintiffs, three brothers and later on by way of oral sale sold the same to them. Mutation Nos. 491 and 492 and also the entries in Jamabandi for the year 1960 -61 have been pressed into service in this behalf. The entries for the first time in the Jamabandi for the year 1969 -70 showing their brother Matha as co -owner -in -possession of the suit land, are stated to be against the order of mutation. The subsequent entries in the Jamabandis for the years 1973 -74 and 1993 -94 showing the defendants to be the co -owners -in -possession of the suit land are also stated to be illegal, null and void. It has further been pleaded that the defendants on the basis of wrong entries have started causing interference in the suit land. The plaintiffs though requested them to desist from such unlawful activities, but of no avail.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court has framed the following issues: