Inder Dev Dua, J. - (1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal affirming that of a learned Subordinate judge Ist Class Karnal and raises the question of adverse possession. The facts giving rise, to the controversy before us lie in a narrow compass and are as follows. According to the allegations of the Plaintiff (Respondent in this Court) the property in dispute belonged to Jug Lal who had gifted the same to his son Mollar but the father and the son being joint in mess and cultivation, Jug Lal continued to be in possession of the gifted property. One Smt. Mehman is also stated to have been joint owner of a share of the land with Jug Lal. The estate of Smt. Mehman is stated also to have been mutated in favour of Mollar on 17 -6 -1947, the lady having died in November, 1945 with the result that Mollar became the sole owner of the entire property in the meantime, however, in April, 1947 Mollar was murdered and mutation relating to his estate was sanctioned in the name of his father Jug Lal by an order of the Revenue Officer also dated 17 -6 -1947, the number of the mutation being No. 917. After the death of Smt. Mehman and the sanction of the mutation regarding her estate Risala (a Defendant in the present suit) and some others filed a suit claiming inheritance to the estate of Smt. Mehman to the exclusion of Jug Lal on certain grounds. This suit was dismissed and the order of dismissal affirmed on appeal. The plaint then proceeds to state that feeling frustrated by the failure of their claim in that litigation, Defendants Nos. 3 to 7 made a desperate attempt of putting forth Smt. Chalti alias Bhago, Defendant No. 1 in the present suit, as the widow of Mollar son of Jug Lal. This lady (Defendant No. 1) with the help of her husband and other disgruntled persons conspired with the local revenue officers and applied on 10 -5 -1956 for the review of the mutation No. 917 dated 17 -6 -1947 contending that she was the widow of Mollar and the latter's father had wrongly got the mutation sanctioned in his favour. The Collector granted the review on 14 -7 -1956. This review has been challenged in the plaint on the ground that Jug Lal was unaware of these proceedings and the Roving Revenue Assistant as also the Collector had no jurisdiction to review the previous order. In the meantime Jug Lal is stated to have gifted the property in dispute to Deep Chand Plaintiff (Respondent in this Court) by mutation No. 995 in February, 1954, the mutation having actually been sanctioned in September, 1954. An appeal filed by Defendants Nos. 3 to 7 was unsuccessful and the Plaintiff claims to have actually been put into possession of the property in 1954 which possession is stated to have continued up to the date of the suit in exercise of the Plaintiff's own right and adversely to the whole world. On learning of the successful review proceedings the Plaintiff and Jug Lal both preferred an appeal to the Collector who set aside the order and remanded the case for making further and thorough enquiries into the matter. Defendant No. 1 took the matter on further appeal to the Commissioner who also directed further enquiries by the Collector as to the identity of Defendant No. 1. There is no reference in the plaint to the date of this order by the Commissioner. In the meantime the learned Commissioner who ordered the enquiry was transferred and his successor heard the appeal on 2 -6 -1959 and accepted it on the ground that the appeal before the Collector was time -barred. The learned Commissioner however, further observed that since mutations confer no right by themselves the Plaintiff's possession could not be disturbed by a mere mutation in favour of Defendant No. 1 who shall have to go the civil Courts before disturbing the Plaintiffs possession. A further revision against the order of the learned Commissioner at the instance of the Plaintiff was rejected. It is, however, sought to be explained in the plaint that this was rejected because the Plaintiff could not arrange for the appearance of his counsel on the date fixed at a short notice. The Plaintiff claiming to be in possession of the property in dispute in assertion of his own right instituted the present suit, in April, 1960 asserting that Defendant No. 1 is not the widow of Mollar deceased and that it is Defendant No. 2, Smt. Manohari, who is Mollar's widow and who immediately on Mollar's death effected a second marriage thereby losing all rights to Mollar's estate. It has also been asserted in the plaint that the property in fact belonged to Jug Lal who continued to remain in possession of the same in spite of the gift in favour of his son in the alternative it has been averred that at any rate Jug Lal rightly inherited the property, on the death of his son and rightly gifted the same to the Plaintiff and put the latter in possession thereof. Otherwise too, so proceeds the plaint, Jug Lal entered into possession of the property in April, 1947 and mutation of inheritance of Mollar deceased was sanctioned in his favour in June, 1947 to the exclusion of all others and that he denied the right of all others to succeed to the pro party left by his son. Even if, therefore, Jug Lal could be held disentitled to succeed he was adversely in possession of the pro -perty against all others and continued to be in possession till he gifted the same to the Plaintiff, with the result that jug Lal and the Plaintiff have remained in possession of the property adversely to others for more than 12 years. The Plaintiff who was entitled to tack on Jug Lal's possession to his own, has become absolute owner of the property in dispute and the Defendants have no right to interfere with his peaceful possession. Defendants Nos. 3 to 7 have also been pleaded to be otherwise estopped, from challenging Jug Lal's right to succeed to the property left by Mollar.
(2.) THE suit was resisted principally by Defendant No. 1 who alone is the Appellant in this Court. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues: 1. Whether Defendant No. 2 was the widow of Mollar deceased and not Defendant No. I 2. Whether Jug Lal effected a valid gift of property with the Plaintiff? 3. Whether Defendant No. 2. has remarried before the alleged gift in question by Jug Lal?
(3.) WHETHER jug Lal and after him Plaintiff has been in adverse possession for a period of 12 years?;