D.D. Seth, J. - (1.) THIS is a Defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for possession over five plots detailed in the plaint.
(2.) THE Plaintiffs' case was that they were the Maurusidar of the plots in dispute and that Nain Singh Defendant No. 12 was the Khaikar of the plots. Nain Singh, according to the Plaintiff, was recorded as Khaikar in the revision settlement and after the revision settlement the Plaintiffs alleged that Nain Singh Defendant No. 12 surrendered the plots in favour of the Maurusidars by a compromise. According to the Plaintiffs the compromise between the parties was arrived at on 25 -12 -1958 and the Plaintiffs since then have remained in possession of the plots as Maurusidars. The Plaintiffs also alleged that sometime in Sambat 2016 Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 wrongfully took possession of the plots in dispute and took away the standing crops thereon belonging to the Plaintiffs about which a criminal case was filed against those Defendants and in which the accused were sentenced to fine. On these allegations the Plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession over five plots and impleaded Defendant No. 12 as the recorded Khaikar. Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 were impleaded because they had taken illegal possession of the plots in dispute and Defendants Nos. 8 to 11 as co -Maurusidars. The suit was contested mainly by Nain Singh Defendant No. 12. He pleaded that he was the Khaikar of the plots in dispute and that the Plaintiff Kaur Singh was all along trying to dispossess him about which a criminal case was instituted by Nain Singh but in the criminal case a compromise was arrived at to the effect that Kaur Singh will not interfere with the land and on that understanding Nain Singh withdraw the criminal case. Defendant No. 12 pleaded that by playing fraud and by putting the contesting Defendant under the influence of liquor the Plaintiff Kaur Singh got his thumb impressions on a compromise and was giving out that the compromise was a surrender deed. The contesting Defendant also pleaded that the Plaintiffs filed a tanaza before the Assistant Records Officer and in that Tanaza Nain Singh Defendant No. 12 had filed a reply as a result of which the Plaintiffs tanaza was dismissed. According to Nain Singh he was ill in Sambat 2016 and therefore, he got the plots in dispute cultivated through the remaining Defendants who are his relations.
(3.) THE trial court framed the following three issues: 1. Whether Nain Singh abandoned the plots in suit or does he still continue to be Khaikar? 2. Whether Defendant dispossessed the Plaintiff in Asauj Sambat 2016? 3. To what relief if any the Plaintiffs are entitled? The trial court held that Nain Singh Defendant No. 12 did not surrender his Kaikar rights in favour of the Plaintiffs and that the alleged surrender deed surrendering Khaikar rights by Nain Singh in favour of the Plaintiffs is a document which was not stamped and bears a court fee stamp of Re. 1/ - and it is an unregistered document. According to the trial court the surrender deed could not be read into evidence in view of Section 39 of the Indian Registration Act as it was not registered. According to the learned Munsif, Tehri Garhwal, the surrender deed was required to be compulsorily registered Under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The trial court also held that the Plaintiffs were not dispossessed in Asauj Sambat 2016 as alleged by them. On these findings the learned Munsif dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit on 11 -8 -1962.;