- (1.) This is defendant's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Addl. District Judge, Jind, whereby the appeal filed against the Judgment and decree dated 8.12.1986 of the Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Jind, was dismissed.
(2.) Plaintiffs case in brief is that Chhota Singh purchased 2/3rd share of land measuring 2 bighas 4 biswas pukhta comprised in khasra No. 3309 by registered sale deed dated 15.1.1957. Similarly, plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 purchased remaining 1/3rd vide sale deed dated 8.1.1960. It is further case of the plaintiffs that the land measuring 11 Kanals 3 Marlas was allotted to them during consolidation of holding which took place sometime in the year 1965-66. Ever since then, they are in continuous possession of the suit land as owners. Apprehending their forcible dispossession by the defendant - Punjab Wakf Board who claimed the land to be a 'Kabristan', served notice upon the defendant and thereafter filed the present suit.
(3.) The defendant put in appearance, filed written statement and denied the various averments made by the plaintiffs. It was further asserted that the plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession of the suit land, rather the land in dispute was a graveyard before 1947 and even now a graveyard. It was further urged by the defendant that the land in dispute had been transferred on fixed rent to Sat Narain and Suresh Kumar. Other pleas with regard to non joinder of necessary, parties; lack of proper notice and suit being time barred were pressed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the suit land as alleged in paragraphs No. 1 to 3 of the plaint OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is not proved whether the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession OPP. 3. Whether the suit land has always been used as grave-yard as alleged in paragraph No. 4 of the written statement OPD. 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation OPD. 5. Whether the suit is, bad on account of non joinder of necessary parties OPD. 6. Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit OPD. 7. Relief.;