- (1.) Claiming succession of Dalu son of Sher Singh, Jat, a resident of village Dhaliwal, Tehsil Nakodar being his sister's children, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit seeking possession of some agricultural land, a house and two vacant plots along with mesne profits in a sum of Rs.10000/-. It was pleaded that the defendantsrespondents had set up a Will of Dalu in a previous suit and claimed ownership over the entire property. The said suit was lost by them up to the High Court where their regular second appeal was dismissed on 26.5.1983. Alleging that the possession of the defendants over the suit property is wrongful and that they were liable to pay mense property, the suit was brought.
(2.) Defendant nos. 1 and 3 alone resisted the suit. The claim against other defendants was given up by learned counsel for the plaintiffs by making a statement in this regard on 30.8.1983. Defendant nos. 1 and 3 denied the ownership of the plaintiffs over the property in question. Defendant no.1 was claimed to be in possession of 18 kanals of land and defendant no.3 was said to be in possession of 32 kanals and 12 marlas of land along with the house and plots. They have taken contradictory pleas of possession over the land as tenants as well as becoming owners thereof by adverse possession. They have denied the claim of the plaintiffs to the suit property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) Learned trial court framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the house and taur in dispute was owned by Dalu OPP 2. Whether Santi was a sister of Dalu OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are the heirs of Santi OPP 4. Whether the defendants are in illegal possession of the taur and house in dispute OPP 5. Whether the defendants No.1 and 3 are in possession of the suit land, mentioned in para No.4 of the preliminary objection of the written statement as tenant If so, then effect thereof OPD 6. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction OPP 7. Whether the description of the land in dispute is incorrect OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness OPD 9. Whether there has been decision of the court upto High Court with respect to the property in dispute and effect thereof OPD 10. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the suit as alleged in the written statement OPD 11. Whether the suit is not within limitation OPD 12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profits If so, to what effect OPP 13. Relief.;