Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.) These are two appeals filed by the defendants in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking a declaration that he had become the exclusive owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 281 and 284 min., situated in village Ram Nagar, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. He also sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the 109 defendants arrayed as such, from interfering in his cultivating possession of the suit land, in any manner. These two separate appeals have been filed against the judgment of the learned first appellate Court, in view of the fact that the respondent-plaintiff and the present appellant, had filed both cross appeals before that Court, against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, partly decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff. A decree of declaration on the basis of adverse possession was denied to the plaintiff, whereas a decree was issued permanently injuncting the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Hence, these two separate appeals. The original plaintiff, Hirda son of Jeona, died during the pendency of the suit itself and was substituted by his son and legal representative, Baldev Singh, through out thereafter.
(2.) The facts, as taken from the judgments of the Courts below, are that the plaintiffs' father, i.e. Jeona, had occupied the suit land in the year 1957 when it was lying vacant and unoccupied. He continued in such possession treating himself as the exclusive owner thereof, right till his death on 02.05.1986. Thereafter, the plaintiff, Hirda, stated that he came into cultivating possession of the land and remained so, to the knowledge of the defendants and all others. The contention was that the possession was continuous, visible, undisturbed, hostile to the owner and consequently adverse but yet open and peaceful, to the knowledge of all. Consequently, the suit was filed seeking a declaration of ownership on the basis of adverse possession of the land, open and hostile to the knowledge of the defendants and all others, stating therein that though some concerned persons had died but their names still continue to figure in the revenue record even though they have no right, title or interest in the suit land. It was further alleged in the plaint that about one week prior to the filing of the suit (on 19.03.2008), the defendants stated illegally proclaiming their right, denying the status of the plaintiff, trying to interfere in his peaceful possession of the suit land and were thereby trying to take forcible possession thereof. Hence, the suit came to be instituted.
(3.) Upon notice issued to them, defendants No.1 to 7, 11, 12, 14 to 19, 43 and 44 appeared and filed their joint written statement, stating therein that the total land included Khasra Nos. 281 and 284, measuring 80 bighas and 7 biswas but the plaintiff had not given the description of the entire land but yet had impleaded all the owners of the said land. As such, he had no cause of action against the answering defendants because the plaintiff was neither the owner nor in possession of Khasra Nos.281 and 284 and revenue entries if any existed in the name of plaintiff, regarding his cultivating possession of the land, were illegal entries, null and void, having no effect on the rights of the answering defendants. It was further contended in the written statement that the total land of 80 bighas and 7 biswas came to the ownership of Chuhar Ram (defendant No.1), Munshi Ram, Tulsi, Mansa, Parsa all sons of Mohra @ Mohar Chand, Assa son of Joki, Dalip son of Karmu, Sunder son of Saudagar, Bachan son of Bhago (defendant No.91) and Des Raj son of Shadi (father of defendants no.43 and 44), vide mutation no.340 dated 19.01.1958, entered pursuant to a civil Court decree, after which the land was transferred in the names of the aforementioned persons in equal shares. It was further stated that Khasra Nos.281 and 284 came to the share of Des Raj son of Shadi, who was also a co-sharer in the remaining land measuring 80 bighas and 7 biswas and on the spot, Rajinder and Jasmer, both sons of Des Raj, were in possession of the said Khasra numbers and therefore, the plaintiff had no concern with them. The entries, in fact, it was contended, needed to be corrected in favour of the aforesaid defendants No.43 and 44. It was further yet contended that the plaint was time barred.;