SARWAN SINGH Vs. RAMSARUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs came into Court asking for a declaration that they were entitled to, as tenants, one-half of certain holdings, instead of a-third share in them as recorded at the time of the settlement. The holdings originally belonged to the ancestor of both partners. One of the members of the family was named Raghunandan Singh who died in the year 1905. The plaintiffs allege that they with the defendants and Raghunandan Singh constituted a joint Hindu family, and that they and the defendants, being now the sole representatives of the family, were entitled to be recorded as tenants of the holdings in equal shares. The suit was defended among other grounds on the ground that the plaintiffs with the defendants and Raghunandan Singh did not form a joint Hindu family and that the defendants held adverse possession of the holdings, being recorded as in possession for several years.

(2.) The Court of first instance decreed the suit. The lower appellate Court came to a different, conclusion upon the evidence and dismissed it. The question before the lower appellate Court was whether the plaintiff's had succeeded in proving their assertion that the family had been joint, although certain portions of the holdings were recorded in the names of different members. The learned District Judge refers to the evidence before him. and particularly to the settlement entries which constitute the most important evidence in the case. These entries appear to have been attested by various members of the family. The learned District Judge goes on to say that in spite of these entries the plaintiffs, the years after the settlement had been can-eluded, came into Court, and alleged that the whole land formed one holding, and that they and the defendants continued to form a joint family up to the end of the year 1905 and to cultivate all the lands jointly. This assertion is characterised by the learned District Judge as amazing. He then discusses the further evidence on the point and refers to (ho evidence of the patwari to the effect that Raghunandan Singh, who died in 1905, remained joint with the defendants and that they had separated from the plaintiffs. His final conclusion upon the question before him was as follows: "I have no doubt whatever that the facts of possession are represented correctly by the settlement record and that the plaintiffs assertion that they continued to cultivate all the holdings jointly with the defendant, up to the present time is totally false." The learned District Judge on this finding dismissed the suit.

(3.) The plaintiffs came in second appeal to this Court, and the learned Judge, before whom it came for hearing, remitted certain issues for findings, being of opinion that the findings of the lower appellate Court were neither clear nor satisfactory. Upon the issues so remitted the findings of the District Judge, who is not the same Judge who decided the appeal originally, were altogether in favour, of the plaintiffs. As a result of these findings the learned Judge of this Court has decreed the plaintiffs appeal.