K.C.PURI,J - (1.) THE plaintiff, feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 7.3.1991 passed by Mr. D. S. Chhina, the then Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, has preferred the instant Regular Second Appeal in this Court. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur has reversed the findings of learned trial Court on issue No. 1 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute on the averments that he was the exclusive owner of the suit land after partition of joint khata with other co-sharers. Mutation No. 1054 was sanctioned on the basis of partition dated 24.2.1981. Previously, Jai Singh, father of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 were in illegal and unauthorised possession of the suit land. After the death of Jai Singh, all the defendants were in illegal and unauthorised possession. He requested the defendants to admit his claim but to no effect. The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff and filed written statement in which it was pleaded that it was wrong that the plaintiff became exclusive owner of the suit land after partition of joint khata. In fact, the plaintiff and other co-sharers, with the intervention of respectables of the village, made a compromise and partitioned their joint holding vide writing dated 31.5.1981 and according to the said writing, the suit land fell to the share of the defendants. The revision filed by the defendants in the Court of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division was withdrawn on the basis of said writing. The defendants were in continuous possession of the suit land for the last 30 years and they have improved it by dint of their hard labour after spending considerable amount. The defendants also pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the plaintiff alleged allotment of suit land in partition proceedings decided by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur on 24.2.1981 and only the said Court had jurisdiction to execute the said order.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is exclusive owner of the suit land and he is entitled to a decree for possession of the same ? OPP. 2. Relief. The learned trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and as a consequence thereof, decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 6.1.1990. ;