- (1.) The defendants have filed this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby on appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of the land in dispute and also for recovery of Rs. 15,000/- on account of damages for the use and occupation of the land for three years, has been decreed while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit on the basis of their title. It is their case that Avtar Singh was the owner of the suit land. After his death, his widow Arjan Kaur, son Harjit Singh and daughter Dildarshan Kaur inherited the suit land. Subsequently, the said three persons sold the suit land in favour of Ralla Singh, father of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of their father Ralla Singh, they inherited the suit land on the basis of the will and became owners in possession of the same. It is alleged that about three years before institution of the suit, the defendants illegally and forcibly took possession of the suit land. Since then they were cultivating the suit land.
(3.) The defendants contested the suit. However, it was contended that Avtar Singh was the owner of the land measuring 168 kanals 16 marlas and out of the said land, he had sold 2/3 share in favour of the Inder Singh, Pritam Singh (father of the defendants) and 1/3 share in favour of Sohan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 19.3.1957. Therefore, they are owners in possession of the suit land. However, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs while observing as under: The plaintiffs asserted themselves that the possession of the defendants is unauthorized, illegal and unlawful. But the revenue record speaks otherwise. In the jamabandi for the year 1979-80 Ex.DS, Sadhu Singh defendant is shown to be in possession as Gair Marusi. Similarly in the jamabandi Ex.P3 for the year 1994-95, the status of both the defendants has been recorded as Gair Marusi. Similarly in the jamabandi Ex.P3 produced by the plaintiffs for the year 1989-90, the status of the defendants is recorded as Gair Marusi. So from the totality of entire revenue record available on the file, I came to the conclusion that the defendants are in possession over the suit land as tenant at will and not in unauthorized and forcible possession. So both these issues are decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.;