JASWANT SINGH & ORS Vs. IQWAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present Review Petition filed under Order 47, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitionersdefendants-appellants to review and recall the judgment dated 17.03.2018, passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.231 of 2006, titled as: Jaswant Singh & Others vs. Iqwal Singh, whereby this Court upheld the judgment dated 23.2.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No.59/2002, affirming the judgment and decree dated 25.6.2002 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, in Civil Suit No.196 of 1993.

(2.) In nutshell ground, as set up in the present petition for seeking review of the judgment dated 17.03.2018 passed by this Court in RSA No.231 of 2006, is that this Court has failed to appreciate that the petitioners-appellantsdefendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') are the lawful owners of the land measuring 0-02-70 hectares bearing Khewat No.21 min, Khatauni No.60 min, comprised in Khasra Nos.642, 643 & 642/1 to the extent of share only, situate in village Mubarikpur, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., as per Farad Jamabandi for the year 1953-54. Defendants have averred in the petition that though trial Court in para-8 of its judgment dated 25.6.2002 has considered Farad Jamabandi for the year 1953-54 Ex.PX-1, but has failed to indicate the name of Ms.Asha Devi widow of Hari Singh, who was equal co-sharer alongwith the defendants. Defendants have further averred that learned trial Court wrongly concluded that it was in the exclusive Hissedari possession of the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') by ignoring the well settled principle of law that possession by one co-sharer is considered as possession by all the co-sharers.

(3.) Apart from above, it has further been averred in the review petition that this Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid Farad Jamabandi for the year 1953-54, which otherwise stands duly discussed in para-8 of the judgment of the learned trial Court and it has been wrongly concluded by this Court in para-11 of judgment, sought to be reviewed in the instant petition, that defendants failed to adduce any evidence of their rights, whereas, as a matter of fact, the possession of the defendants stood duly proved to the extent of their share on the basis of the said Farad Jamabandi for the year 1953-54 and this document fortified the pleadings of the defendants that they were coming in possession of the suit land from the time of their ancestors to the extent of their shares.