MOHENDRA DUBE Vs. RAM BHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of a one- third share in certain occupancy holding and for damages.

(2.) The plaintiffs's case was that they were entitled to a one-third share in the holding and that the remaining two-thirds share belonged to defendants 1 to 7. One of the defendants to the suit was Ram Das Dube and he alleged in his written statement that he along with the plaintiffs was entitled to one-third share claimed by the plaintiffs; in other words, he maintained that he had a one-ninth share in the holding in dispute and that the decree in the plaintiffs favour should be passed "subject to the reservation of his right and share."

(3.) The contesting defendants, who are the appellants before me, resisted the suit on the ground, that the plaintiffs had no share in the holding in dispute and further the plaintiffs not having been in possession within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit, the suit was time barred. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned District Judge remitted certain issues to the trial Court for findings thereon. On return of those findings the lower appellate Court has held that the plaintiffs allegation that they were the owners of a one- third share in the holding, and had a subsisting right to the same, has been proved and on that finding it has passed a decree in the plaintiffs favour for a one-third share of the holding in dispute.