JEET RAM Vs. KANSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby he partly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, both the parties have filed these appeals.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit land measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas, comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 88/96, 97, bearing Khasra Nos. 220 min (0-6), 221 (0-15), 220 (0-10), situated in village Kaulanwala, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') on the ground that they are owners of the land and defendants No.1 to 3 were in possession thereof with the consent of the plaintiffs and since the permission stands withdrawn by the plaintiffs, through registered notice dated 11.8.1985, as such, the possession of defendants No.1 to 3 is unlawful from the date of withdrawal of the consent. It was further claimed that the suit land was redeemed from Sh. Krishan Lal in the month of June, 1979 and, therefore, a decree for possession be passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs wherein they claimed that the plaintiffs had earlier filed a Civil Suit No.91/1 of 1979 which was decided on 4.11.1981. In that suit, the plaintiffs claimed a decree for injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs themselves were in possession of the suit land. However, the suit was dismissed and, therefore, the maintainability of the subsequent suit was objected to by invoking the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. The defendants claimed that the land measuring 16 biswas out of the suit land is covered by the house constructed by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and the same is in their occupation for the last more than 55 years continuously. The defendants further claimed that the suit land along with other land was mortgaged with their predecessor-in-interest i.e. Santu and Pyare Lal. It was claimed that thereafter it was mortgaged with Hans Raj, Santu, father of defendants No.1 to 3. Pyare Lal was residing with his family members in the aforesaid house and as far as the suit land is concerned, the same was in possession of the defendants as tenants of the mortgagee of Ram Krishan and Hans Raj. The tenancy was created for the better management of the property in question. In the alternative, the plea of adverse possession was also raised. The defendants raised the plea of partly owners of the suit land and partly tenants over the suit land. It was pleaded that a compromise dated 13.7.1979 was effected in the Khangi Panchayat regarding the suit land in which the defendants agreed to give up possession of the other land in favour of Ramji and Jeet Ram, son of Ramji and at that time, Ramji and Jeet Ram were entitled to receive a sum of Rs.500/- in lieu of the land measuring 14 biswas. The compromise Ex. DA was placed in Civil Suit No. 91/1 of 1979, decided on 4.11.1981. It was claimed that the plaintiffs are bound by this compromise and cannot, therefore, seek possession of the land. The defendants further claimed that in part performance of the contract, they are in possession of the suit land and no possession can be claimed from them.