BHAG SINGH AND ANR Vs. MULA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's Second Appeal whose suit for declaration has been dismissed by both the courts below.

(2.) Bhag Singh and Jangir Singh, the plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration against their brother Mula Singh, defendant, to the effect that they were the owners-in-possession of 108 Kanals 15 Marlas of land, on the allegations that in Pakistan they held property jointly with the defendant, and their share in the property was 1/4th each; that when they migrated to India, the property was allotted in the name of Mula Singh alone but on 21st June, 1954, in the presence of the Panchayat, Mula Singh executed an agreement whereby he transferred 70 Bighas 6 Biswas of land to the plaintiffs and delivered the possession thereof; that some time after the consolidation proceedings took place in the village and in lieu of 70 Bighas 6 Biswas of land they were allotted 108 Kanals 15 Marlas of land which is now in dispute; that the possession of this land was given to them and they continued cultivating it as owners and also installed one tubewell; that in the year 1964 the defendant in connivance with the Patwari got an entry made in the revenue record to the effect that they were cultivating the land as tenants at will on payment of Batai; that this entry was wrong and so, they filed an application in the Revenue Court for correction of the Khasra Girdawari; that those proceedings went up to the Financial Commissioner who remanded the case for a fresh decision and that in the meantime Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 had been prepared, and, so, Tehsildar, Sunam dismissed their application on the ground that after the preparation of the Jamabandi, entries in the Khasra Girdawari could not be corrected. The plaintiffs further alleged that the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 were wrong and they were not the tenants at will under the defendant but were the owners-in-possession, and hence the suit for declaration. The defendant contested the suit on the plea that the land was allotted to him in India in lieu of the land owned by him in Pakistan; that he never executed any agreement transferring the ownership to the plaintiffs with respect to 70 Bighas 6 Biswas of land, and even if any such document was proved, that would not be admissible being unregistered, and that the plaintiffs had been cultivating the land with his consent as his tenants and they were not the owners of the land.

(3.) The trial Court found that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit land as alleged nor had they acquired title by prescription, and, consequently, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of the trial Court, and, thus, maintained the decree dismissing the suit. Aggrieved with the same, the plaintiffs have filed this Second Appeal in this Court.