Rohit Arya, J. - (1.)THIS appeal under section 100 CPC by the defendants' is directed against judgment and decree in civil appeal No. 131A/2005 by District Judge, Sheopur District Sheopur affirming the judgment and decree dated 22/09/2005 passed in civil suit No. 66A/2004 by I Civil Judge, Class -II, Sheopurkalan, plaintiff's suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits has been partly dismissed though plaintiff has been declared owner of 1/3rd part of suit land admeasuring 3 bigha 12 biswa falling in survey No. 374 situated in village Banbada, Patwari Halka No. 22. However, his claim of 1/3rd in the land admeasuring 6 bigha 19 biswa falling survey No. 385 situated in village Banbada, Patwari Halka No. 22 and mesne profits claimed by the plaintiff has been denied by the trial Court (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). Defendants No. 1 to 3 have also filed cross -objection and the first appellate Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the same.
(2.)FACTS necessary for disposal of this appeal in nutshell are to the effect that original plaintiff, Laddu Lal and defendants' common ancestor was Ganeshram and the entire suit property was of his ownership and possession. Ganeshram had three sons, Bhairulal, Onkarlal and Govinda. Defendant No. 1, Gobari Lal was son of Onkarlal and defendant No. 2, Chaturbhuj was son of Govinda. Bhairulal has three sons, namely; Badri, Gopi and Laddu. However, all the three brothers, Badri, Gopi and Laddu have died and the sole legal heir alive is Laddu Lal. Admittedly, suit land is of joint ownership of plaintiff and defendants, there was no partition amongst them and their names are recorded jointly in the revenue record. Defendant No. 1, Gobariya had 1/3rd share. Defendant No. 2, Chaturbhuj had 1/3rd share and deceased three brothers, Badri, Gopi and Laddu have 1/3rd share each but sole surviving heir is Laddu Lal as is apparent from the revenue record from Samvat 2026 (year 1969) to Samvat 2030 (year 1973). As Laddu has been away from the village and was living in village Badoda for a long time, defendant No. 1 manipulated the revenue record and behind back of Laddu Lal got his name eliminated from the revenue record and got his name added to the extent of 2/3rd share of the suit land. On the aforesaid facts, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he is entitled for 1/3rd share of the suit land, recovery of possession and also mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 11,000/ - per annum for doing cultivation and harvesting crops by defendant No. 1 as regards share of plaintiff also. It is also asserted that the defendant No. 1 used to give the share out of the crops, however, stopped to give the same. Hence, filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mesne profits as stated above.
Defendant No. 2, Chaturbuj has admitted the claim made by plaintiff by filing written statement and prayed for that the decree to be passed in favour of plaintiff.

(3.)DEFENDANT No. 1, Gobariya had filed written statement and denied plaint allegations. Inter alia, it is contended that plaintiff is residing in his in -laws house at Badoda for the last 30 years. Defendant No. 1 claimed to be in possession over the suit land since then. In fact, the plaintiff has sold his part of the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/ - 20 years ago to the defendant No. 1. He asserted that the same was reduced in writing but the same was never produced before the Court. It is further asserted that the defendant No. 1 has perfected title by adverse possession. Defendant No. 1 claimed to have acquired status of occupancy tenant (Aadipatya krishak) under section 169 of the Code and acquired bhumiswami rights under section 190 of the Code. With the aforesaid pleadings, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.