NIRMAL YADAV,J - (1.) BOTH the above mentioned appeals filed by plaintiff-Chand Kaur, involving identical questions of law and fact and having been directed against the same judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Rewari dated 22.4.1995 with a further prayer for modification of trial Court findings, are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE facts, as per plaint, are that plaintiff Chand Kaur is the owner of land measuring 23 kanals 12 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Aullant, Tehsil and District Rewari, being the widow of Maniya @ Matia. The brothers of her husband, namely, Lachia and Mohria, who were unmarried and had left the village about 22/23 years prior to the filing of the suit, have not been heard or seen by anyone since the aforesaid period, therefore, they are presumed to have died. Maniya @ Matia, Lachhia and Mohria were the owners of the land in dispute as Dohlidars. The plaintiff is the sole legal heir of her husband and his brothers. It is further pleaded that Tek Chand son of Dula Ram was a tenant under the plaintiff at 1/3rd batai. He also died unmarried on 25.3.1980. His death certificate is produced on record as Exhibit P-2. The plaintiff was collecting Batai from Tek Chand regularly. During the life time of Tek Chand, the plaintiff's house was damaged and, therefore, she started living with her brother. The defendants have taken forcible possession of the suit land. The plaintiff challenged the entries made in column No. 10 in Jamabandi, Exhibit D-1, wherein Tek Chand is recorded as cultivator of land without payment of any rent and by way of forcible possession. The cause of action arose to the plaintiff when the defendants refused to vacate the property on 1.1.1986. The defendants contested the suit stating that plaintiff has not inherited the suit property as Dohlidar. They also denied the relationship of plaintiff with Lachhia and Mohria being her brothers-in-law. According to them, Lachhia and Mohria are still alive. It is pleaded that Tek Chand was never inducted as tenant on payment of 1/3rd Batai, but he was the owner of the suit land and his possession was open, hostile and to the knowledge of the plaintiff. He remained in possession for more than 40 years and thus, became owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Defendants claimed themselves as legal representatives of deceased Tek Chand as per pedigree table shown in paragraph No. 3 of the written statement. It is further pleaded that after the death of Tek Chand, the land in dispute was inherited by their father Ram Narain and after him the defendants are in possession. They did not take forcible possession of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether the plaintiff is Dohlidar of the suit land ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not within limitation ? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD. 5. Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit land, by way of adverse possession as alleged ? OPD. 6. Relief."
(3.) THE trial Court decided issue No. 1 partly in favour of the plaintiff holding that plaintiff was Dohlidar to the extent of her husband's 1/3rd share and further decided issues No. 2 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff and, thus, partly decreed the suit. Both the parties preferred appeals against the judgment and decree of the trial court. The Ist Appellate Court while setting aside the findings of trial court on issue No. 1, accepted the plaintiff's plea that she is Dohlidar over the suit property holding that she has inherited all the rights of Dohlidar of her husband and also that of her husband's brothers. The learned Ist Appellate Court, however, reversed the findings of the trial court on issues No. 2 to 5 holding that defendants have become owners by adverse possession. Resultantly, the learned Ist Appellate Court partly accepted the appeals preferred by both the parties, but dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.;