PRITAM SINGH Vs. KISHAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Una, H.P. dated 3.4.2002, passed in Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1998.

(2.) KEY facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the predecessor in interest of respondents No. 1((i) to 1(viii), namely, Sh. Kishan Singh has instituted suit for declaration against the appellant and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) to the effect that land measuring 3 kanals 1 marlas, comprised in khewat No. 178, khatauni No. 229 -230, bearing khasra Nos. 2236/369 min (2K -1M) and 2236/369 min (1K -0M), situated in village Rampur Tehsil and Distt. Una, is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff and defendants. The alleged entries appearing in the revenue record in the column of ownership in the name of Santokh Singh son of Tulsa Singh, predecessor -in -interest of defendant Pritam Singh and in the column of cultivation showing kh. No. 2236/369 min (2K -1M) as Khud Kasht and Kh. No. 2236/369 min (1K -0M) under the tenancy of defendant No. 2, namely, Sh. Tarsem Singh, and his brother Harbans Singh, as per array of parties given in the original suit and mutation bearing No. 3282 transferring ownership rights of deceased Santokh Singh in the name of defendant No. 1 are incorrect, wrong and illegal. The suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the parties and the illegal entries appearing in the revenue record in the column of ownership in the name of Santokh Singh and in the column of cultivation as Khud Kasht under the tenancy of defendant No. 2 and his brother Harbans Singh predecessor -in -interest of defendants No. 3 & 4 and further mutation No. 3282 transferring ownership rights of deceased Santokh Singh in the name of defendant No. 1 are absolutely wrong, incorrect and void.

(3.) THE replication was filed by the plaintiff. The learned Sub Judge, Una, framed the issues on 3.12.1993. The learned Sub Judge, Una, decreed the suit on 22.4.1998 for declaration to the effect that plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 2 to 4 were owners in possession qua 1/3rd share over suit land measuring 3 kanals 1 marlas which came to them after the decision of LR -V form. Defendant No. 1, Pritam Singh, as arrayed in the original suit, has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.4.1998 before the learned District Judge, Una. The remaining defendants No. 2 to 4, as per the original suit, were arrayed as proforma respondents. The learned District Judge, Una, dismissed the appeal on 3.4.2002. Hence, this regular second appeal.