RAJIVE BHALLA,J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of RSA Nos. 789 of 1981 and 2483 of 2002, as they relate to the same property and as adjudication of RSA No. 789 of 1981 would determine the outcome of RSA No. 483 of 2002.
(2.) THE plaintiffs-appellants, in RSA No. 789 of 1981 challenge the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1981, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur accepting the appeal filed by the respondents, reversing the judgement and decree, passed by the trial Court and as a result dismissing their suit. Respondent No. 4 Surjan Singh has filed RSA No. 2483 of 2002, challenging the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur accepting the appeal, setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla dated 28.7.2001 and as a result dismissing his suit. The appellants filed a suit for ejectment by alleging that they are owners of the suit land as they have a preferential right to succeed to the estate of Jiwa Singh-deceased, as reflected in Mutation No. 256 dated 29.2.1964. The respondents filed a written statement claiming that after the demise of Jiwa Singh, parties to the suit effected a family partition dated 12.7.1957. As a result of this settlement, they have become owners in possession of the suit land. In the alternative, they pleaded that they have become owners by adverse possession as they are in possession since 1957. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether there has been family partition whereunder the land measuring 9 bighas 7 biswas bearing khasra Nos. 412/1-10, 444min/2-1, 443/3- 11, 442/2-5, fell to the share of defendant No. l as alleged in the written statement ? If so its effect ? OPD. 2. Whether defendants have become owners of land measuring 18 bighas 14 biswas bearing khasra Nos. 412 min/1-10, 444 min/2-0, 443 min/3-11, 442 min/2-5, 412 min/ 1-10,444/2-1, 443 min/3-11, 442 min/2-5, by way of adverse possession ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from instituting the suit by their act and conduct ? OPD. 4. Relief."
(3.) AFTER considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial Court decreed the suit. The trial Court affirmed the execution of the family partition but held that as concededly, the appellants are preferential heirs, the family settlement executed in ignorance of the law, would not bind their rights. The trial Court also held that the respondents have failed to prove that they have become owners by adverse possession.;