JAI DASSI Vs. NEELMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgement, two appeals, i.e. RSA Nos. 63 of 1995 and 67 of 1995, are being disposed of, as both the appeals have been admitted on the very same substantial questions of law, which are as follows:-

(2.) FACTS relevant for the disposal of the two appeals may be noticed. Respondents- plaintiffs, in both the appeals, filed two separate suits for declaration that they were exclusive owners in possession of the property, described in the plaints, and that the entries in the revenue papers, showing appellants- defendants as joint owners with them, were wrong and illegal and of no consequence qua their right, title and interest in the suit property. It was alleged that some of the appellants-defendants and the predecessor in interest of the other appellants-defendants had earlier filed a joint application against the respondents- plaintiffs for the partition of the suit property, alleging that they were joint owners to the extent as recorded in the revenue papers. Respondents- plaintiffs contested that application and pleaded that they were in exclusive possession of the suit land and challenged the entries in the revenue record, showing the appellants- defendants as joint owners in possession. The Revenue Officer, i.e. Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mandi, vide order, dated 30.6.1979, declined to pass any order on that application for partition, till the question of title raised by the plaintiffs, was adjudicated by the civil suit. Despite passing of that order by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mandi, appellants- defendants did not file any suit for declaration of their alleged title, as joint owners of the suit property. Plaintiffs- respondents claimed that the property had fallen to their share in a private partition, about 50- 55 years back and in case the private partition was not proved, they having remained in exclusive possession for more than 12 years and their possession being open, continuous, peaceful and hostile, they had acquired title by adverse possession and that their exclusive possession with a hostile assertion amounted to ouster of the appellants- defendants.

(3.) PARTIES went to trial, at the end of which the learned trial court concluded that no private partition had taken place between the parties. However, plea of adverse possession raised by the plaintiffs- respondents, found favour with the trial court and consequently, the suit was decreed and a declaratory decree was passed that the respondents- plaintiffs had acquired title by way of adverse possession and by way of further relief permanent injunction was also granted restraining the appellants- defendants from causing any interference in the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents. Trial court gave the reason that in the reply filed by the plaintiffs- respondents in the year 1974 to the partition application of the appellants-defendants, plea of adverse possession had been set up and a period of 12 years had lapsed since the setting up of the aforesaid plea and hence the plaintiffs-respondents had acquired title by prescription.