VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Ferozepur accepting the appeal partly and modifying the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.
(2.) THE plaintiff-appellants filed a suit on the plea that Raman son of Haku son of Vir Singh was owner of the land measuring 101 kanals 13 marlas as detailed in the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed that they being Hindus were governed by Mitakshra School of Hindu Law and were governed by Hindu Succession Act in the matters of succession. It was claimed that said Raman son of Haku died in 1972 leaving behind two sons namely Mehtab Singh and Gulab Singh and five daughters. It was claimed that since he died after 1956 all his sons and daughters were entitled to inherit the property left by him in equal shares. Mehtab Singh and Gulab Singh sons of Raman, however, got the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in their favour fraudulently and mis- stating the true facts before the Revenue Officer. The said mutations were also challenged being illegal and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs. Gulab Singh also died and he was succeeded by defendant No. 1 while Mehtab Singh on his death was succeeded by his heirs defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Gulabo one of the daughters of Raman also died leaving behind plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 and while Kammo left behind plaintiff No. 5, Bharian left behind plaintiff Nos. 6 and 7 as her heirs. The plaintiffs claimed 6/8 share in the land left by Raman and, therefore claimed possession of the land. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, a plea was taken that Raman had died on 2.11.1963 and that defendants were in possession and had become owners by adverse possession. It was claimed that the disputed property was joint Hindu Property and defendant No. 1 was entitled to the succeed the share of Gulab Singh. Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 did not contest the suit as they admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether disputed property is joint Hindu Family property and defendants have become its owners after death of Raman being co-parceners ? OPD 3. Whether defendants have become owners of the suit property due to hostile and adverse possession ? OPD 4. Whether Raman deceased died on 2.11.1963 or in the year 1972 ? Onus parties. 5. Relief. On issue No. 1, the learned trial Court was pleased to hold that the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed on the basis of inheritance. On issue No. 2, the learned trial Court observed that the jamabandi for the year 1971-72 on record showed that the property was in the name of Raman and was not shown to have been inherited from his father Haku. Keeping in view the fact that defendants had led no evidence to show that the property was joint Hindu coparcenary property, issue No. 3 was decided against the defendants and it was held that the defendants have failed to prove that they had become owners by way of adverse possession. Whereas on issue No. 4, it was held that Raman in fact died on 2.11.1963. However, it was held that the suit could not be held to be barred by limitation as the plaintiffs would be presumed to be co- sharers and, therefore, in joint possession. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed.
(3.) IN appeal, filed by the defendants, the learned lower appellate Court was pleased to reverse the finding on issue No. 2 by holding that the stand of the defendants in the written statement that the property in the hand of Raman was joint Hindu Family property of Raman deceased and his two sons and they formed coparcenary, was in fact admitted in para Nos. 2 and 7 of the replication. Consequently, it was held that once there was admission on the part of the plaintiffs qua the nature of the property, issue No. 2 deserved to be decided in favour of the defendant No. 1 i.e. the contesting defendant and in view of the reversal of the finding on issue No. 2, the appeal was partly accepted and it was held that while the sons would be entitled to 1/3 share in their individual capacity the 1/3 share held by Raman is coparcenary with his sons and would be inherited by all the legal heirs in equal shares.;