- (1.) The plaintiffs are in second appeal. The, suit was originally filed for possession by Basant Kaur daughter of Ind Kaur who had left behind 478 Kanals 13 Marias of land and a residential house in village Kutba. Out of the land situated in village Kutba, 17 Kanals 10 Marias of land was acquired by the State Government and a mutation was sanctioned in that regard, whereas mutation of inheritance of Ind Kaur was sanctioned in favour of Basant Kaur vide mutation No. 4313 dated 12.04.1963. Bachan Singh, now represented through Malkiat Singh, filed a suit for declaration against Basant Kaur regarding ownership and possession of land measuring 478 Kanals 13 Marias which was decreed by the learned Trial Court and appeal filed by Basant Kaur was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. However, a compromise was effected between the parties in RSA No. 356 of 1966 on 15.10.1976, which reads thus:The parties have entered into a compromise and according to the compromise the suit of the plaintiff is decreed qua 20 acres only out of the suit land. His suit with respect to the remaining land stands dismissed The decree of the Courts below is modified accordingly and the parties are left to bear their own costs.
(2.) It is also admitted fact that Bachan Singh did not file any suit with regard to the other land of village Hamidi and also with regard to the residential house of village Kutba. Bachan Singh had effected various alienations out of the suit land of village Kutba of the land measuring 234 Kanals 13 Marias to defendant Nos.2 to 14. The case set up by Basant Kaur is that Bachan Singh could only alienate 160 Kanals of land, i.e. 20 acres, but he sold 74 Kanals 13 Marias of land in excess of his share which devolved upon him vide decree of the High Court. It was further alleged that vide agreement dated 09.02.1963, Bachan Singh had given possession of land measuring 116 Kanals 17 Marias out of remaining land in his possession situated at village Kutba to defendant Nos.18 to 21 without any right or title. Thus, out of total land measuring 466 Kanals 03 Marias, Bachan Singh remained in possession of 104 Kanals and 13 Marias situated in village Kutba, but he had sold his share of land measuring 15 Kanals 17 Marias situated in village Hamidi to defendant Nos.15 to 17 although he had no right or title to do so. It was also averred that Bachan Singh was in unauthorized possession of land measuring 02 Kanals 17 Marias situated in village Hamidi and also a residential house situated in village Kutba. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed possession of land measuring 323 Kanals 14 Marla (Infact the total area of Khasra numbers mentioned in the heading of the plaint comes to 319 Kanals 16 Marias) and one house situated in village Kutba against the defendants. Defendant Nos.15, 16 and 17 did not put in appearance despite service and were proceeded against ex-parte. Bachan Singh contested the suit and admitted Ind Kaur to be the original owner of the property and the fact of mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of her daughter Basant Kaur. He admitted the filing of the earlier suit but denied the other allegations made in the plaint and had asserted that the alienations made by him were valid. Defendant Nos.2 and 14 also resisted the suit by way of filing their separate written statement and averred that the decree passed by the High Court on the basis of compromise was collusive and the alienations effected in their favour are valid. Similar pleas were raised by defendant No. 3, 4 and 13. Defendant Nos.5 to 9 also took the similar pleas in their joint written statement. Defendant Nos.10, 11 and 12 maintained mat they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and the relationship between Basant Kaur and Ind Kaur' was denied. It was asserted that the decree passed by the High Court was collusive which was not binding on them. Defendant Nos.18 to 21 filed their separate written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the land measuring 116 Kanals 07 Marias was given to them by its owner Bachan Singh in pursuance of an agreement dated 09.02.1963 and they are continuing in its possession since then. It was pleaded mat they have become the owners by virtue of adverse possession and the suit is also barred by time. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 20.12.1978:- 1. Whether Basant Kaur was daughter of Ind Kaur and the plaintiffs are successors-in-interest of Mst Basant Kaur as such have the locus-standi to file the present suit? OPP 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPP
(3.) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD;