ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. HARDYAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appellants claimed themselves to be the owners of the suit land measuring 1 Bigha 19 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 124, entered at Khewat No. 5, Khatauni No. 12, situated in Mauja Bargan, Pargana Barabal, Tehsil Suni District Shimla. The Appellants had preferred a suit for possession pertaining to the aforesaid land alleging that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had taken the suit land as licensees from Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5, 12 and Shri Bhagat Dass, who had been succeeded by Plaintiff Nos. 6 to 11, and the condition of the licence, according to the Plaintiffs, was that the licensees had to surrender the possession in favour of the owners on demand. Shri Dhankloo, the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 3(a) and 3(b), as per averment made in the plaint, was inducted by the licensees as a tenant and, according to the Plaintiffs, this tenancy could continue till the revocation of licence granted in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2). Further case of the Plaintiffs has been that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, were informed by the Plaintiffs in the year 1972 that the land in suit was required by them and that they should deliver its vacant possession to the Plaintiffs but the Defendants failed to do so inspite of repeated promises and as a consequence thereof, on demand by the Plaintiffs, the licence in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 stood revoked and cancelled and since 1972 the possession of all the Defendants was without any interest and right. The Plaintiffs served them with a notice dated 4th July, 1973 to handover the possession but the Defendants did not comply with the terms of the notice and hence the suit for possession was filed.

(2.) The Defendants in their written statement took certain preliminary objections and pleaded that the Plaintiffs had absolutely no right whatsoever to institute the suit regarding the suit land inasmuch as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the owners of the suit land and their predecessors had been so entered in the record of right paying no rent, being owners. The Plaintiffs' suit has been assailed to be beyond limitation and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 claimed themselves to have become absolute owners by way of adverse possession for more than the statutory period of 12 years. The Plaintiffs' plea that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, held the suit land as licensees, has been denied and not admitted. However, it was very specifically pleaded that Defendant No. 3 was in occupation of the suit land as a tenant since generations, under Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, and their fore-fathers. The other averments of the plaint were not admitted.

(3.) The parties were put to trial on the following Issues by the trial Court: