KARTARI DEVI Vs. UDHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1997 passed by learned District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 3/1992, confirming judgment, decree dated 5.8.1991 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No. II, Amb in case No. 1041 of 1984.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Udham Singh filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of land measuring 5 Kanals 14 Marlas to the extent of 2/3rd share out of land measuring 8 'Kanals 11 Marlas, comprised in khewat No. 301, khatauni No. 655 and Khasra Nos. 1095 and 1113 vide jamabandi 1979 -80, village Gagret, Tehsil Amb, District Una, the revenue entries and mutation No. 3531 showing Prem Singh as owner in possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 17 Marlas to the extent of 1/3rd share out of land measuring 8 Kanals 11 Marlas are wrong and illegal having no effect on the rights of respondent No. 1. In the suit, consequential relief of permanent injunction from taking forcible possession of the suit land was also prayed with alternative relief of possession.

(3.) PREM Singh died and his legal representatives were brought on record, who contested the suit by filing written statement. They took preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, estoppel, nonjoinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. On merits, their pleaded case is that their predecessor Prem Singh and Udham Singh were uterine brothers. Prem Singh was brought up by Meghoo as his son, who treated him as his son. Meghoo was in possession of the suit land as tenant at will on payment of rent and after his death Udham Singh and their predecessor Prem Singh entered in possession in the same capacity and now appellants No. 1 to 6 are in possession alongwith respondent No. 1 of the suit land. Prem Singh, the predecessor -in - interest of appellants No. 1 to 6 entered in possession of the suit land qua his share as tenant - at - will on payment of rent under Lachhman Dass, who was in hissedari possession of the suit land. Prem Singh was adopted son of Meghoo. On coming into force of the Act, respondent No. 1 and Prem Singh became owners as the conferment of proprietary rights is automatic under the Act. After the death of Prem Singh, appellants No. 1 to 6 are in possession of the suit land qua the share of Prem Singh. The proprietary rights were conferred in presence of the parties. The respondents No. 2 and 3 also contested the suit by filing separate written statement. They took almost the same defence as was taken by appellants in the written statement. The respondent No. 1 filed replications. The learned Sub -Judge on 5.8.1991 decreed the suit for possession and dismissed the suit for relief of injunction. The decision dated 5.8.1991 was assailed by way of an appeal. The appellants in the first appellate Court filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was dismissed but in revision this Court allowed the amendment, thereafter, an additional issue 12(A) of adverse possession was framed. The appeal was dismissed by learned District Judge on 30.8.1997, hence this appeal, which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: