AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) THIS regular second appeal filed by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.1984 passed by the lower appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 16.5.1980 vide which the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation.
(2.) ADUMBRATED , the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they along with defendant No. 5 Sultan are owners in possession of 4/5th share of the suit property measuring 7 kanals 8 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Kanwi District Narnaul as per jamabandi for the year 1970-71 and defendants No. 1 to 3 have no concern with the same. It was pleaded that mutation No. 728 dated 15.12.1985 sanctioned in respect of the inheritance of Ram Dhan son of Hukma in the name of Natha son of Ramdhan son of Hukam was illegal, fraudulent and was liable to be set aside. It was further pleaded that initially the suit property measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas bearing khewat No. 59, khatauni No. 296, khasra No. 731 situated in the revenue estate of village Kanwi was in possession of Mam Raj son of Hukma as a tenant and on the death of Mam Raj, mutation No. 105 with regard to their inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Smt. Jamna widow of Mam Raj on dated 22 Jyesth 1967 BK. After the death of Smt. Jamna Devi, the mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Mongia, Phusia, Richhpalia sons of Khem Chand, Pirana son of Chokha, Rambax son of Nima 1/5th share; Murlia son of Tiloka 1/5th share; Richhpalia son of Nonda alias Notu 1/5th share; Ram Dhan son of Hukma 1/5th share and Ishwar son of Hukma 1/5th share. It was further pleaded that Pirana, Rambax, Mongia, Phusia and Richhalia had died issueless and their shares in the suit property devolved upon their heirs. Ram Dhan also died and Hansa, Phusa, Cheta and Jhutha inherited his property. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 4 Hansa and Phula, Cheta, Jhutha and defendant No. 5 Sultan came to be recorded in possession as tenants in respect of the suit land. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs obtained the copies of the revenue record and come to know about the mutation in dispute. They filed a revision before the Collector, Naraul on 29.11.1976 and the same was dismissed holding that the matter involved intricate questions of law and fact and the plaintiffs were directed to approach the Civil Court. The averments made in the plaint were refuted by the defendants by raising various preliminary objection in their written statements. It was pleaded that mutation No. 728 sanctioned on 15.12.1995 BK was rightly sanctioned in favour of Natha son of Ram Dhan and the defendants are descendants of said Natha. It was further pleaded that the defendant were in possession of the suit property and claimed to have become owners by way of adverse possession. It was further pleaded that during the consolidation proceedings, the plaintiffs have admitted the defendants to be the descendants of the owner of the suit property. The other averments made in the plaint were also denied. The trial court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether plaintiffs are owners and in possession of suit land ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is within time ? OPP 3. Whether defendants No. 1 to 3 have become owner by adverse possession ? OPD 4. whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit, as alleged ? OPD 5. Relief".
(3.) ON appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties, it was held that though the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property yet plaintiff No. 1 was not in possession of any portion while plaintiff No. 2 was in possession of 1/10th share of the suit property. Issues No. 3 and 4 were decided against the defendants. The trial court, however, holding that the suit was time barred dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.1980. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs took the matter in appeal and challenged the findings of the trial court on issue No. 2. The lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.1984 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and holding that the suit was time barred, dismissed the appeal as well.;