Birendra Singh Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS Second Appeal has been filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6. Defendants Nos. 7 and 5 have been arrayed as Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for possession of the house in dispute situated in Bhiwani. According to the allegations in the plaint, this house was owned by Tej Ram, grand -father of the Plaintiffs. He executed a registered gift deed dated 10th January, 1956 in respect of this house in their favour and also delivered its possession to them. Panna Lal, father of Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and husband of Defendant No. 6 had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Plaintiffs and their father Nathu Ram on the ground that he was its owner in possession and they (i. e. present Plaintiffs and Tej Ram) should not interfere with his rights. That suit was dismissed on 23rd November, 1968. That judgment operates as res judicata between the parties. Panna Lal took possession of this house in the absence of the Plaintiffs who were residing in Delhi about three years prior to the filing of the instant suit (which was filed on 22nd October, 1971). Panna Lal, who was in relation their grand -father, was asked many times to vacate the house but he did not listen. Panna Lal died about 21/2 years prior to the filing of the suit. Now Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 were in its illegal possession. It may be mentioned here that Defendant No. 7 Nathu Ram (some other person than the father of the Plaintiffs) was made a party to the suit as during the pendency of the suit some portion of the house had been given to him on rent by the contesting Defendants. The plaint was amended accordingly.
(2.) THE suit was contested by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6. They pleaded that the gift deed executed by Tej Ram in favour of the Plaintiffs was null and void as the house was owned by Chiranji Lal father of Parma Lal. Said Tej Ram, who was brother of Panna Lal, had been adopted by Pokhar Mal son of Durga Prashad and, therefore, he lost his rights in the house. Before and after the said gift, Panna Lal had remained in possession of the house and the Plaintiffs did not get its possession under the gift deed. The Defendants have got his house being members of the joint Hindu family with their grand -father Chiranji Lal. The judgment given in the suit filed by Panna Lal was not binding upon them because in the suit the legality or illegality of the gift deed was not decided. Alternatively they pleaded that they have become owners of the house by adverse possession for over 12 years. Some other pleas were also taken as will be clear from the following issues framed by the learned trial Court: - 1. Whether the Plaintiffs are owners of suit property on account of the gift deed made by Tej Ram in his favour on 10.1.1956 ? 2. Whether the donor later or revoked and was legally competent to revoke the gift deed in favour of the Plaintiffs if so to what effect ? Whether the judgment and decree dated 23.1.1968 passed in civil suit No. 794 of 1966 is not binding on the Defendants ?
(3.) WHETHER the Defendants have become the owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession ?;