MADANLAL Vs. DURGADUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two cross appeals arising out of the judgment of the Civil Judge, churu, dated 21-4-1953, in a suit for possession of certain land, and we have also before us the cross objection filed by defendant Nathmal and his three brothers. Appeal No. 28 of 1953 was filed by Madanlal plaintiff in this Court, while appeal No. 34 of 1954 was filed originally by defendant Nathmal and others before the district Court and thereafter re-presented to this Court on 15-2-1954. These defendants thereafter filed a cross-objection in this Court in order to avoid the plea of limitation, which might possibly have been raised by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants had filed their appeal in the wrong court and had presented it in this Court long after the period of limitation had expired, but there is no dispute before us that the cross-objection was filed within one month's time of the service of notice of the plaintiff's appeal on these defendants. We proceed to dispose of these matters by this judgment.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties relates to two plots of land situate in the town of Churu, --these plots being adjacent to each other. The plaintiff's case briefly put was that his ancestors Rambhagatdas Jokhiram had purchased these two plots in Samwat years 1907 and 1924 and had obtained two separate pattas for each of them. The land purchased in S. 1907 is marked 'a' and that purchased in Samwat 1924 is marked 'b' in the site plan Ex. P-1 produced by the plaintiff along with his plaint. It may be mentioned at once that plot A was admittedly in the possession of defendants respondents Eajranglal and Gulabchand, and plot B of defendant nathmal and his brothers at the date of the suit. According to the plaintiff, he is a resident of village Bisau and has been living in Bombay in connection with his business there, and so he left these plots, and a shop (with which we are not concerned), under the care of Nagarmal Madanchand Chow-dhari whom he had sometime later appointed as his aam mukhtar. The plaintiff's case is that Sheobux rai, father of defendants respondents Nos. 1 and 2, being some sort of relation of nagarmal Madanchad, had obtained from the latter an oral licence to use these plots for purposes of stacking fire-wood and preparing cow-dung calces etc. and he was thus in temporary use of the plots in question though the exact period for which he was in such possession is not disclosed. It is alleged that after some time Sheobuxrai expressed a desire to purchase these plots but the proposal did not materialize because the plaintiff had asked for a higher price than what Sheobuxrai was prepared to offer and this annoyed sheobuxrai, and so, it is said that he entered into a conspiracy with defendants nathmal and his brothers on the one hand and defendants Bajranglal and his brother Gulabchand on the other, and put Nathmal and others in possession of plot B and Bajranglal and Gulabchand of plot A, and it is further alleged that seeobuxrai did so because defendants Nathmal and his brothers were his close relations and Bajranglal and Gulabchand were the Munims of defendants Nathmal and others. The plaintiffs case further was that as the original pattas had somehow been lost and were missing, he applied in Churu Tahsil for new pattas some time in 1945, but his prayer was opposed by Sheobuxrai as also Nathmal and his brothers and bajranglal and Gulabchand as a result of which by an order of the Tehsildar dated 27-4-1951, he was directed to have his right established in a civil court. Consequently, the plaintiff instituted this suit in the court of the Civil Judge, churu, on 20-10-1951, in which he has valued these plots as Rs. 7000/ -. The other defendants Ratilal and others are relations of the plaintiff and were impleaded merely as pro forma defendants. Defendant Sheobuxrai allowed the suit to proceed ex parte against himself, and the two sets of contesting defendants resisted the suit. It is unnecessary to mention their defences separately because they contested the suit more or less on the same lines and their principal contention was that they had been in long and undisturbed possession of their respective plots for about a period of 60 years, and that the plaintiff's case that they had ever entered into possession of these plots with the permission of Nagarmal Madanchand or sheobuxrai was entirely false and unfounded. Their case further was that they had been in exclusive possession of these plots on their own and kept them under lock and key and that they had built a Dhalia (tin-shed) on each of the plots and that this had been standing on the site for the last fifteen years and over. These defendants also pleaded that the plaintiff's suit was barred by time as he had never been in possession of the suit plots within 12 years of the institution of the suit.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit so far as the plot marked B was concerned, but dismissed it as regards the other plot. It is this decision which is challenged before us, -- the plaintiff contending in his appeal that the entire suit should have been decreed, and the defendants Nathmal and others contending that the suit should have been dismissed with respect to plot B as well which was in their possession for more than 12 years before the institution of the suit. It may be pointed out here that the finding of the learned Civil Judge on the question of title win respect to both the plots was in favour of the plaintiff. This finding is also strenuously attacked before us.