SUKHMANI Vs. HARI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal arises out of a suit for possession at the instance of the Plaintiff -Appellant relating to suit land as detailed in the plaint. The Plaintiff -Appellant grounded her claim for possession of the suit land on the strength of her title and alternatively she claimed possession on the ground of her having become owner by adverse possession. The Defendant controverted the allegations and pleaded that she was neither owner nor was ever in adverse possession against the Defendant who is the real owner alongwith his collaterals who claimed to have been in possession of the land all through. The trial court framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged (i) that the lower appellate court has misread the evidence of Smt. Sukhmani, Plaintiff and (ii) that for its finding 'that Defendant had been in continuous possession of the suit land with other claimants from the death of Smt. Mansan widow of Ram Deya', it has not relied upon or made any reference to any evidence on the record. Before adverting to the submission of the learned Counsel, I consider it desirable to reproduce the pedigree table which is admitted on both sides to correctly appreciate the controversy between the parties. (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. Please write to contact@ if the vernacular matter is required.) At this stage it is also desirable to notice the fact that Thakuri, daughter of Bishna was married to Devi Chand of village Baknaur who adopted Ram Partap grandson of Bishna and nephew of Thakuri, his wife. The said Ram Partap died in the year 1910 and his son Munshi alias Chuhra was survived by his widow Smt. Sukhmani, the Plaintiff -Appellant. Ram Diya brother of Ram Partap died issueless and was survived by his widow Smt. Mansan.

(3.) NOW to appreciate the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the factual position as emerged from the documentary evidence placed on the record may be considered. The earliest jamabandi Exhibit P -14 placed on the record relates to the year 1917 -18. In this jamabandi Smt. Sukhmani and Mansan have been depicted as owner's and one Chhajju son of Phaggu is shown in cultivating possession as tenant of 40 bighas 2 biswas, Renku Ram son of Ram Bhaj and Khushi Ram, son of Chet Ram are shown in cultivating possession of 3 bighas 9 biswas as tenants paying 2/5th of the produce as Batai. Jamabandi Exhibit P -16 relates to the period of 1926 -27 wherein Renku Ram son of Ram Bhaj and Khushi Ram son of Chet Ram are shown in cultivating possession of 2 bighas 7 biswas as tenants paying half of the produce as Batai. In Jambandi Exhibit P -15 for the year 1922 -23 the entries are the same as in Exhibit P -16 and so is the case with jamabandi Exhibit P -10 relating to the year 1930 -31. In jamabandi Exhibit P -9 for the year 1934 -35 the entries are the same as in jamabandi Exhibit P -16. On 2nd September, 1935 Mansan widow of Ram Deya died and on December 11, 1935, a mutation of inheritance Exhibit P -8 of the land left by Smt. Mansan was sanctioned in the name of Smt. Sukhmani, Plaintiff -Appellant. Jamabandi Exhibit P -6 relating to the year 1938 -39 reflected a departure from the entries in' the previous Jamabandis in as much as in Exhibit P.6, Smt. Sukhmani is shown to be the sole owner and name of Smt. Mansan from the column of ownership is omitted because of her having died as already noticed. Smt. Sukhmani, Plaintiff -Appellant is shown in possession of 1 Bigha 13 Biswas and the rest of the land measuring 41 Bighas 18 Biswas is shown in cultivating possession of the said Renku Ram and Khushi Ram as tenants and the entry in the column of rent reads 'billa Lagan bawaja vaqja boodbash' (without rent because of their common boarding and lodging). In Jamabandi Exhibit P. 5, relating to the period of 1943 -44 the entries of Jamabandi Exhibit P. 6 are repeated. Jamabandi Exhibit P. 4 relating to the year 1950 -51 marks a departure from the previous Jamabandis. In this Jamabandi Smt. Sukhmani is recorded as owner and in the column of cultivation, the entries 'khud kasht' along with Budhia and Shingara, Halli, the owner is to have 6 shares of the produce and Budhia and Shingara are to share between themselves two shares of the produce equally. Renku Ram and Khushi Ram are not shown in possession of even an inch of the suit land in exhibit P. 4. In Jamabandi Exhibit P. 1 pertaining to the year 1959 -60, revenue entries of Jamabandi Exhibit P. 4 are repeated. In Jamabandi Exhibit P. 2 for the year 1962 -62 Smt. Sukhmani is recorded as owner of the whole of the suit land and in cultivating possession of only 2 Kanals 1 Maria and of the rest of the land Hari Kishan son of Khushi Ram and one Gharibu son of Buta are recorded in cultivating possession as tenants and in the column of rent entry is 'billa lagan bawaja rishtedari'. The allegation of the plaintiff is that in the year 1961 Hari Kishan Defendant, dispossessed her which led her to file the present suit on September 14, 1964.