DURGI DEVI Vs. PARAM DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 129/1999 whereby the appeal of the appellant has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the learned trial court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the present appellant alongwith one Smt. Devku (whose name stands deleted) had filed a suit against the respondents and their predecessor-in-interest. In the suit it was alleged that the revenue entries showing the suit property in the ownership and joint possession of the plaintiffs and their mother Maltu to the extent of 1/2 share with one Bhadri and widow of late Narotam as owner of the other 1/2 share are incorrect. According to the plaintiffs their grand father Kalia was in sole possession of the suit property and he was succeeded by Narotam Magu and Hukami. All these three have died. Magu was the father of the plaintiffs and according to the plaintiff he was in exclusive possession of the suit property including the shares of Hukami and Narotam. Further, according to the plaintiff, Narotam, after the death of his first wife had kept Bhadri as a concubine. According to the plaintiffs Bhadri was in fact wife of Devi Ram and the original defendants were stated to be the children of Bhadri from the loins of Devi Ram. Narotam died on 22.2.1974. According to the plaintiff the share of Narotam was wrongly mutated in the name of Bhadri as his wife. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed to have become owner by way of adverse possession.

(3.) THEY pleaded that Bhadri was in fact wife of Narotam and according to them the mutation in her favour was rightly attested. They also claimed that previously also a suit had been filed by the plaintiffs and their mother which had been dismissed. The trial court on the pleading of the parties framed the following issues:-