Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.) This is the second appeal filed by the appellants after their suit for declaration, that they were owners in possession of a 1/2 share of the suit property and for correction of the revenue record in that regard, was dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, vide his judgment and decree dated 16.10.2012 and the appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, vide his judgment and decree dated 18.03.2015.
(2.) As per the plaintiffs -appellants, they are the co -owners in possession of a 1/2 share of the suit land, measuring 44 kanals and 2 marlas in village Allika, District Palwal, alongwith the respondents -defendants, who are co -sharers to the extent of the other 1/2 share. The appellants based their claim on the 'jamabandi' (Record of Rights) for the year 2003 -04. It was further contended in the plaint that the appellants are illiterate persons and though they had been cultivating the suit land to the extent of 1/2 share, they had never seen the revenue record till 27.06.2006, when they got a copy of the 'jamabandi' and were surprised to know that the respondents are shown to be owners in possession of the entire suit property. Thereafter, on checking the earlier revenue record, it was found, as per the appellants, that the respondents had fraudulently got omitted the name of the appellants from the record. The revenue record further revealed that from the time of the forefathers of the parties, one of the ancestors of the respondents, Daya Ram by name, had been adopted by one Har Sahai son of Jeeta. The plaintiffs - appellants contended that actually Daya Ram had never been adopted by Har Sahai and in fact, he is shown to be son of one Abhay, one Nanhe and of Har Sahai, in different revenue records, which showed that a fraud had been committed for obtaining the suit land at different places, in connivance with Revenue officials. The appellants thus contend that the cause of action accrued to them when they checked the revenue record and thereafter requested the respondents to get it corrected in their name, which was refused by the respondents. In the written statement filed by the respondents, they took preliminary objections qua the maintainability of the suit, the locus standi of the appellants, limitation having run out and estoppel etc. It was further contended that the suit had been filed only to harass them and to grab their property by suppression of true facts. On merits, it was contended that they (the respondents - defendants) were correctly recorded as owners in possession of the entire suit property of which they were in possession from the time of their forefathers. The story put forward by the appellant,s with regard to Daya Ram not having been the adopted son of Har Sahai, was stated to be a concocted story, in the written statement filed. It was further submitted by the respondents that the appellants had full knowledge about the entries in the revenue record for more than 30 years and as such, the suit in any case was time barred. The factum of wrong revenue entries having been made in connivance with Revenue officials was obviously also denied. In fact, it was stated that (though the knowledge of the respondents with regard to revenue entries was 30 years old), the revenue entries reflecting the names of respondents and their forefathers were more than 100 years old, showing the respondents, Dev Rattan and Balbir Singh, to be the successors -in -interest of their father Jai Lal, who was the successor -in - interest of his father, Daya Ram, who in turn was the successor -in -interest of Har Sahai @ Har Parsad.
(3.) The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court from the above pleadings: - "1. Whether plaintiffs are owners in possession to the extent of 1/2 share of the suit land and the defendants are also owners in possession to the extent of 1/2 share of the suit land fully detailed and described in para no. 1 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP 3. Whether the present suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD;