SURAJ Vs. DALIP SINGH ALIAS KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of these two appeals, because similar questions of law and facts are involved and the contesting parties are also the same in both the cases.

(2.) BOTH the appeals have been filed by Suraj Ram, who was defendant in Civil Suit No. 200 of 82 / RBT 192 of 88, that had been filed by late Smt. Parvati, who on her death was substituted by Dalip Singh, respondent and plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 70 of 1986, which he himself filed against respondent Dalip Singh. The suit filed by late Smt. Parvati was tried and decided by one Civil Court at Palampur, while the suit filed by appellant Suraj Ram was tried and decided by another Civil Court, stationed at the same place. It appears that nobody bothered to bring it to the notice of the two Courts that two Civil Suits between the parties were there and they needed to be consolidated or at-least tried simultaneously.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the appellant. He alleged that in the year 1927 plaintiff (Smt. Parvati) had filed a suit seeking partition of her share and in that suit there was a compromise between the parties on 19.11.1927 and in terms of that compromise, the plaintiff (Smt. Parvati), out of 56 Kanals of land, falling to her share and in her possession, had surrendered possession of 24 Kanals in favour of appellant's father Ram Dayal, who agreed to discharge her debts from the income of that 24 Kanals land and the remaining 32 Kanals land was left with the plaintiff with the clear stipulation that she would have the life interest therein and that she would not have any right to alienate that property or even to create a charge thereon. It was further stated that in case the aforesaid plea was not established, he being in possession and his possession being open, hostile, uninterrupted and continuous, he had acquired title by prescription. Certain preliminary objections like the plaintiff being estopped to file the suit, the suit being barred by time, the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, revenue entries showing the plaintiff as joint owner to the extent of one-half share being wrong, the plaintiff having no locus standi to sue and the suit being bad for mis-joinder of other persons as co- defendants, were also taken.