- (1.) The plaintiffs-respondents brought a suit against the defendants-appellants and others on the grounds that the suit property belonged to them and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Dharam Pal and Faqir Chand Sood as per the entries in the revenue record. Chhotu Ram died in the year 1959 and was succeeded by plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3. Since the plaintiffs did not reside in village Mehtabgarh but at their places of business defendants Nos. 1 and 3 had entered into possession of the suit land without any legal right. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 to 3, it was stated that they were in possession of the suit land as the owners. They also claimed ownership thereof by adverse possession claiming themselves to be in possession for more than 65 years. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- (1] Whether the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are the owners of the suit land ? (2) Whether Durga Devi and Parkash Wati are the heirs of Chhotu Ram, deceased ? (3) Whether the suit is time-barred ? (4) Whether the defendants are in adverse possession of the suit land and have become owners by virtue thereof ? (5) Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction ? (6) Relief. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit as all the issues were found in their favour by it. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, affirmed the findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed by it in favour of the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants-appellants have come up in second appeal to this Court.
(2.) The main contentions raised before the lower appellate Court were that the defendants had become the owners of the suit land by adverse possession and that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by time. The lower appellate Court - the final Court of fact - has given a categorical finding that the defendants had failed to prove their adverse possession or that the present suit was barred by time. These are concurrent findings of fact which do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as to be interfered with in second appeal by this Court.
(3.) It may also be mentioned that the present appeal, as filed, was not competent because though the names of Dharam Pal and Faqir Chand Sood, defendants, in whose favour the decree was passed alongwith the plaintiffs, were shown in the decree sheet of the lower appellate Court, yet they were not impleaded as parties to this appeal. Thus, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.;