JAGAR NATH Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants, hereinafter called defendants, are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25-12-1994 of learned District Judge, Bilaspur whereby affirming the decree dated 21-11-1985 passed by the trial Court, appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) First the relevant facts may be noticed. Late Shri Bali Ram, now represented by respondents No. 1 and 2 (Munshi Ram and Lala Ram) filed a suit for possession of land measuring 13 Bighas 18 Biswas, entered against Khewat No. 14, Khatoni No.37, Khasra Nos. 137, 274, 275, 276 and 286, situated in village Jol Plakhin, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, pleading the following cause of action. There lived a man by the name of Gursaran. He had three sons, named deceased plaintiff Bali Ram, one Megha and one Ganga Ram on the death of Gursaran, his aforesaid three sons inherited his estate, including the suit property. Ganga Ram had a son, named Hart Singh. On the death of Ganga Ram, his son Hari Singh inherited his estate which consisted of the suit property. Unfortunately, Hari Singh died at a young age. His estate was inherited by his widow Sunehru and mother Manbhari. Sunehru and Manbhari sold the suit land, inherited by them from Hari Singh, in favour of four persons, namely Jangi Ram, Mehler and Budhu, the predecessor of the present appellants and proforma respondents hereinafter called defendants. Sale was made by a registered deed on 29-4-1997 B. K. Bali Ram and Megha, being the reversioners, challenged the sale on the ground that Sunehru and Manbhari had inherited only life estate and hence they had no authority to sell the property. The sale deed was set aside by the Civil Court vide decree dated 27-6-1949 (Ext. P.2). It appears that Sunehru re-married during the pendency of the aforesaid suit filed by Bali Ram and Megha. Therefore, her share in the suit property, which she inherited from Hari Singh, was mutated in favour of Manbhari, mother of Hari Singh. On 22-5-1967 Budhu, one of the four transferees, and two sons of Jangi Ram, another transferee, re-transferred 5/12th share equivalent to 5 Bighas 14 Biswas area out of the suit land in favour of Manbhari, vide mutation No. 385. Manbhari on 29-5-1978 transferred this very share in favour of Ram Krishan, one of the gran sons of aforesaid Jangi. Manbhari died on 7-4-1981. Soon after her death, deceased plaintiff Bali Ram filed a suit for possession of the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, vide order dated 17-4-1982 Paras Ram, a son of Megha, who was one of the co-plaintiffs with Bali Ram in the suit in which decree Ext. P-2 had been passed, setting aside the sale by Manbhari and Sunehru, was also impleaded as plaintiff. Initially he was impleaded as proforma defendant. Plaintiffs claimed that on the death of Manbhari they had become entitled to the possession of the suit land.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellants/defendants and the proforrna defendants on various grounds. It was alleged that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction had not been done properly and the suit was not maintainable. It was pleaded that relinquishment made by Jangi's sons and Budhu in respect of 5/12th share in the suit land was lawful and valid and the subsequent sale of the said share by Manbhari in favour of defendant No. 10, one of the grand sons of Jangi, was also valid and lawful. It was pleaded that defendants had been coming in possession of the suit land for more than twelve years and their possession was open, hostile, as of right and hence they had acquired title by prescription. This plea of adverse possession was taken by them with respect to 7/12th share of the suit land, i.e. land other than that which Manbhari re-sold to defendant No. 10 in the year 1978.