NIDHU RAM Vs. KRISHNA DEVI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintained by the appellant against the judgment and decree, dated 3.8.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, (H.P), in Civil Appeal No.131 of 2002, whereby the learned lower Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Court No.2, Mandi, District Mandi, passed in Civil Suit No.507/99/95, dated 6.9.2002.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') maintained a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction and also for possession against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') alleging that land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.2/2, Khasra Nos.69, 77, 78, 84, 99, 128, 129, 130, 153 and 154 kita 10, measuring 11-10-13 bighas, situated in Village Chadyana, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P, (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') is shown in ownership and possession of the plaintiffs to the extent of 1/6th share each and defendants No.1 to 4 to the extent of 1/6th share each. The land was earlier held by their grandfather Devi Ditta from whom it was succeeded by Loharu. Loharu died in the year 1973 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 4 and as such, the share of plaintiffs was 7/18 each and the share of defendants No.1 to 4 were 1/18 each. The plaintiffs have also pleaded that they are governed by Mitaksra School of Hindu law. The entries with regard to the suit property in the revenue record are wrong, illegal and void. It is further averred that the plaintiff taking undue advantage of the revenue entries, defendant No.4 sold her 1/6th share to defendants No.5 & 6, vide registered Sale Deed No.842, dated 26.7.1994 and the same is wrong, illegal and void. The plaintiffs have also took the plea of adverse possession on the ground that since they have been in possession of the entire suit land and their possession is open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile to the title of defendants No.1 to 4 and as such, they have become owners qua the share of defendants No.1 to 4 by perfection of their title by adverse possession. The sale of 1/6th share by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 and 6 is null and void.

(3.) Defendants No.2 and 6 filed their joint written statement, while defendants No.4 & 5 filed separate written statement. Defendants No.2, 5 & 6 have denied that the suit property is of joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property. The defendants have also denied that the plaintiff has become owner-in-possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession. The defendants have contested the suit on the ground of estoppel, locus standi, limitation and maintainability. Defendant No.4 has also contested the suit, but she has denied the sale of her 1/6th share in favour of defendants No.5 & 6. She has also denied the receipt of consideration from them.