SHEO SHANKER SINGH Vs. SANGRAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of two Suits No. 129 of 1928 and No. 6 of 1929 instituted by two groups of plaintiffs. The parties represent some members of five branches of the descendants of Raghubar Singh, who was their common ancestor. The claim related to numerous properties consisting of zamindaries, houses as well as tenancies. The case put forward by the plaintiffs in Suit No. 129 of 1928 was that they were entitled; to a one-fifth share in the properties in suit under an arbitration award dated 20 December 1916, on the basis of which a decree was passed on 5 January 1917, and they were in possession up to the time of the suit. The plaint was filed on 20 December 1928. The cause of action alleged in the plaint was 20 December 1927 when it was stated that the defendants had commenced to deny the plaintiffs rights. Later on 20 March 1930, the plaintiffs with the permission of the Court got a new relief added which was in the following terms: If in the opinion of the Court the possession of the plaintiffs over the said property is not proved then a decree for joint possession of one-fifth of the property etc., be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

(2.) In Suit No. 6 of 1929 the plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession of the properties in suit and also based their rights on the same award and decree. They claimed a declaration of title as regards three-fifths in the entire property and also asked from the very beginning an alternative relief that if for some reason the plaintiffs are considered to have been dispossessed then a decree for joint possession may be passed in their favour against the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged the date of their cause of action to be in September 1928, when the defendants denied their rights. In both these cases as the plaintiffs principal case was that they were in possession up to the time of the suit, there was no specific allegation that they had in fact been dispossessed and accordingly there was no statement of the date of any such dispossession.

(3.) The contesting defendants in both the suits took up the position that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the properties claimed by them and also that the decree and award were not given effect to and were not binding on the parties and that the defendants had remained in adverse possession all along and the claim was barred by time. There was a further plea that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim with regard to the tenancies. The learned Subordinate Judge has decreed Suit No. 129 of 1928 in part and dismissed the rest of the claim in that suit. He has however decreed Suit No. 6 of 1929 for the joint possession of the properties in its entirety except as regards the tenancies. The reason why the claims as regards the tenancies have been dismissed is that the Court is of the opinion that these claims were cognizable by the Revenue Court and not by the Civil Court and that therefore they could not be entertained by it. Both the sets of the parties have appealed and there are cross-appeals which account for the four appeals before us.