- (1.) This regular second appeal filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dated 30th December, 1977, arises out of a suit for possession of agricultural land.
(2.) Amolak Singh, plaintiff, filed a suit for possession of the land in dispute, comprised in Khasra No. 247, situated in Pathankot, against Chaman Lal and other defendants. He pleaded in the plaint that the suit land is recorded in the revenue record as "Shamlat Deh Hasab Paimana Malkiat"; that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 9 being co-sharers are the owners of the land in dispute; defendant No. 1 is in illegal possession of the said land without any right, title or interest and hence the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 9 are entitled to recover possession thereof.
(3.) Chaman Lal, appellant, contested the suit. He admitted that the land in dispute is recorded in the revenue records as Shamlat Deh Hasab Paimana Malkiat, but he denied the other allegations of the plaintiff and alleged that besides the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 9, there were many other co-sharers of the Shamilat and that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 9 disposed of huge area of land in Pathankot and were no longer entitled to have share in the Shamilat. The defendant-appellant also alleged that he is in possession of the suit land not as a trespasser, but as of right. Bar of limitation was also pleaded. Defendant also alleged that the suit is not maintainable as property in dispute was urban property and that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- (1) Whether suit is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary issue No. 1 ? (2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? (3) Whether the suit is land is Shamlat Deh Hasab Paimana Malkiat ? (4) Whether the suit is not within limitation ? (5) Whether civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? The trial Court holding that the suit land was Shamlat Deh Hasab Paimana Malkiat and the defendant, as such, had no right thereto decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. In appeal filed by the defendant Chaman Lal, the findings arrived at by the trial Court were affirmed and the decree passed by the trial Court was maintained.;