R.L.ANAND,J - (1.) RANJIT Kaur and others, unsuccessful plaintiffs have filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree date 22.2.1999, passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Bathinda, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5.3.1994, passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Bathinda, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs for possession was dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 3 kanals 12 marlas against Ram Narain, defendant-respondent. The land was comprised in khasra No. 200 in village Nandgarh, Tehsil and District Bathinda. The case set up by the plaintiffs before the Court was that they are owners of the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84 and that the defendant had illegally occupied the same in April 1982, by forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs for which they had no right to do so. On these small allegations, the plaintiffs prayed for the decreetal of the suit. The suit was contested by the defendant and it was pleaded that the defendant and his predecessors are in possession of the suit land since the year 1957-58. Their possession was open, hostile and adverse to the real owners. In this view of the matter, the defendant has become the owner of the suit land. Initially, Atma Ram and his brothers were in possession of the suit land. Subsequently, Atma Ram alone came into the possession of the said land and after the death of Atma Ram, the defendant entered into the possession. His possession is adverse and hostile to the real owner and the defendant has become the owner of the suit land by lapse of time. It was also pleaded by the defendant that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit and that the suit is not legally maintainable. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the land in dispute ? OPP 2. Whether the defendant had taken possession of the land in dispute unlawfully from the plaintiffs in the year 1982 ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get back the possession of the land in dispute ? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is false and frivolous and defendant is entitled to special costs, if so to what effect ? OPD 7. Whether the defendants have matured their title by way of adverse possession from the land in dispute ? OPD 8. Relief."
(3.) THE parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and the learned trial Court ultimately, dismissed the suit. On issue No. 7, the findings of the trial Court went against the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the unsuccessful plaintiffs filed the first appeal before the Court of the Addl. Distt. Judge, Bathinda, who for the reason given in para-15 of the judgment, dismissed the same. Para-15 reads as under :- "I have considered the aforesaid contentions of the Learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record placed on record by the parties. The copy of jamabandi for the year 1955-56 Ex. P5 shows that Nand Singh and Mukand Singh were owners-in-possession of the suit land. Nand Singh and Mukand Singh were predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff. The copy of jamabandi Ex. P4 for the year 1968-69 also shows Nand Singh and Mukand Singh to be owners in possession of the suit land. The copy of jamabandi Ex. P6 for the year 1973-74 shows Atma Ram father of the defendant to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. His possession is recorded as forcible and without payment of any rent. In the jamabandi Ex. P1 for the year 1978-79 Ram Narain defendant is recorded in possession of the suit land. Same entry is repeated in the jamabandi Ex. P8 and Ex. P9. The copy of khasra girdawari Ex. P-10 is from the year 1969-70 to 1973-74. The khasra girdawari shows Atma Ram to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. Thus the defendant and his predecessors-in-interest have been recorded in possession of the suit land, since the year 1973-74. In the copies of jamabandies Ex. D1, Ex. D2, Ex. D3 and Ex. D4, Ram Narain defendant or his father Atma Ram have been recorded in possession of the suit land. In the khasra girdawaries entries from Sauni, 1974 to Kharif 1992 Ex. D5 to Ex. D8 Ram Narain defendant or his father Atma Ram have been recorded in possession of the suit land. Thus the revenue record shows that Ram Narain or his father are continuously in possession of the suit land since the year 1974. The record further shows that the suit was filed on 19.10.1989. So, the possession of the defendant Ram Narain or his father Atma Ram was more than 15 years. So the possession of the defendants for more than 12 years before the filing of the suit is well supported by the revenue record. So the contention of the plaintiffs that suit land was occupied by the defendant in April, 1982 forcibly is not supported by the revenue record. In para No. 2 of the plaint it is alleged that defendant had illegally and forcibly occupied the suit land in April, 1982. The revenue record shows that defendant is in continuous possession of the suit land since the year 1974. At the time of filing of the suit defendant's possession over the suit land was for more than 12 years and his possession has matured into title and he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. The entire revenue record placed on the record by both the parties shows that possession of the defendant is recorded as forcibly and without payment of any rent." ;