- (1.)In these two appeals, we are concerned with khasra no. 133/131/87, situate in village Parag, tehsil and district Solan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed land').
(2.)Kulfi Ram and Ratti Ram were two brothers. They had extensive properties and lands alongwith the disputed land in village Parag. In the year 1921, a partition took place between Kulfi Ram and Ratti Ram and as a result thereof, it is alleged that the disputed land came in share of Kulfi Ram. Subsequently, in the year 1931, a further partition took place between the legal heirs of Kulfi Ram, namely, Balak Ram, chet Ram and Shiv Dayal. It is alleged that in the said partition, the disputed land had gone into the share of Chet Ram. On 31 st december, 1973 the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of Shiv Dayal alongwith the legal heirs of Chet Ram, filed a suit for declaration that they are the co-owners of the land described in the schedule annexed with the plaint. In the schedule, the disputed land was also mentioned. Subsequently, respondent nos. 28 to 34 moved an application before the trial court for being transposed as defendants, as according to them, they are the exclusive owners of the disputed land. The trial court rejected the said application. Aggrieved, respondent no. 37 filed a revision petition before the High court against the order of the trial court rejection the application. The said revision was allowed and the trial court transposed the legal heirs of Chet Ram as defendants in the suit. The said defendants, after being impleaded, filed a separate written statement, wherein they claimed to be in 137 exclusive owner and in possession of the disputed land. The trial court decreed the suit and held that the plaintiffs alongwith the legal heirs of Chet Ram are the co- owners of the property described in the schedule attached to the plaint. Aggrieved, the legal heirs of Chet Ram filed an appeal before the learned district judge. In the said appeal, they reiterated that they are the exclusive owners and in possession of the disputed land. The first appellate court accepted the claim of the legal heirs of Chet Ram. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court to that extent stood modified. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs as well as defendant nos. 2 to 8 in the suit, who are the legal heirs of Ratti Ram, filed two separate appeals before the High Court. The high Court dismissed both the appeals. It is against the said judgment, the two separate appeals have been filed. The only question that arises for our consideration is whether the disputed land is exclusively owned by the legal heirs of Chet Ram or it is jointly owned by the plaintiffs and the legal heirs of Chet Ram. The first appellate court as well as the High Court has recorded concurrent findings of fact that the said land was exclusively owned by the legal representatives of Chet Ram. We have perused the judgment and we do not find that the said finding of fact suffers from any infirmity.
(3.)Consequently, the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.