K.C.PURI,J. - (1.) THIS common judgment will govern the disposal of Regular Second Appeal No. 2332 of 1999 titled Kulwant Singh v. Khariti Lal and Regular Second Appeal No. 1866 of 1999 titled Kulwant Singh v. Gian Singh and others, as both these appeals have arisen out of same judgment and decree passed by the then Additional District Judge, Ambala. However, the necessary facts have been extracted from Regular Second Appeal No. 2332 of 1999.
(2.) KULWANT Singh plaintiff filed a civil suit against Gian Singh and others, defendants for a declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 20.10.1987 registered on 23.10.1987 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 regarding land measuring 13 Kanals 8 Marlas bearing Khewat/Khatauni No. 33 Min/53, Khasra Nos. 36//19/2, (5-8), 20(8-0) situated in village Kaunkpur was illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights as owner with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over that land forcibly except otherwise in due course of law. The plaintiff alleged that he and, defendant No.1 were brothers. About 30/35 years back, an oral family settlement had taken place between them. In that exchange, the suit land had fallen to his share and since then he was in cultivating possession of the same as owner. But because of certain legal reasons, mutation could not be sanctioned in his favour. Therefore, defendant No. 1 was still recorded as owner of the suit land. Taking undue advantage of that fact, he has sold that land to defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The sale was illegal, null and void and not binding on his rights as owner. In case, exchange was not proved, he had become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession, because he was in cultivating possession of the suit land for the last more than 12 years without any hindrance.
(3.) DEFENDANT No. 1 contested the claim of the plaintiff and admitted in the written statement that he and the plaintiff had exchanged some land but alleged that the suit land was never exchanged. He was the exclusive owner of the same and he had sold the same to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and now defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were in possession of the suit land as owners.;