(1.) THIS is a defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge of Kangra decreeing the plaintiffs' suit. The relationship of the parties is clear from the following pedigree table :
(2.) ON 5th August 1938, the plaintiffs, Mian Tej Singh and Partap Singh brought a suit against the descendants of Himmat Singh for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the full owners and possessors of the entire land mentioned in the plaint and that the revenue entries showing defendants 1 to 8 as owners of 1/4th are contrary to facts and are not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs founded their claim on two grounds: (1) that the property in dispute had been acquired by their father, Indar Singh, or his father, Uttam Singh, and that the line of Himmat Singh had no title to the land in dispute, and (2) that the plaintiffs had been in adverse possession of the land in dispute for a large number of years and had, therefore, become owners by lapse of time. The defendants pleaded that the land was acquired by their grand -father and by the plaintiffs' father and the father of the defendants out of joint funds belonging to the two branches of the family, and the land had remained joint and had been jointly enjoyed by the parties, the entries in the revenue record ware consequently correct.
(3.) THE case on remand was tried by Mr. Mani Ram, Senior Subordinate Judge, Kangra, and be found on issue I that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the sole ownership of the land in dispute. As a matter of fact before him also it appears that it was admitted by the plaintiffs that the ownership of the land by purchase by their ancestors had not been proved by them. On issue 2, i. e, adverse possession, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the issue had been proved. For this purpose he relied mainly on the two litigations of the years 1912 and 1930. He, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs' suit and against this decree the defendants have come up in appeal to this Court.