P 2 with regard to denial of share of Bhagat Ram in the joint land of village Panjoh, was a reason for Bhagat Ram to claim an exclusive title in the disputed land situate at village Samleu and the offer itself was number a part of any mutual arrangement.
The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein affirming the said view holding that numberarrangement was arrived at between the companysharers to the effect that the respondents would be cultivating the land on behalf of other companysharers stating Be it numbericed that numbersuch arrangement was shown to have been ever agreed by the parties number the companytesting defendants have pleaded any such arrangement in the written statement.
P 11 and 11 01 1984 Ex.
Whether the defendants are in joint possession of the suit property as companysharers?
It was further held that repudiation of title of the defendant by the plaintiff was open and hostile.
P 1, Ex.
So, it is number companyrect that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land under some mutual arrangement.
Allegedly, in the revenue settlement record of rights prepared in the year 1953, joint ownership of lands situate in village Samleu was recorded.
This plaint is dated 29.2.1968.
1 to 22 are intending to alienate the land on the basis of mere entry in the papers.
P.1 is the companyy of the plaint of the suit instituted by some of the defendants in the year 1968, against the present plaintiff.
As stated above, the longstanding revenue entries since 1952 53 record the plaintiff to be in exclusive possession of the land in dispute.
Plaintiff respondent companytinued to possess the properties situate at village Samleu.
On the plea that the land situate in village Punjoh was jointly recorded, it was urged that the entry in the said record of rights attained finality.
The arrangement companytemplated in Tankih Ex.
In the aforementioned suits, a prayer for partition and separate possession was claimed by the appellants herein in respect of 2/3rd share in the entire land situate in village Samleu.
P 4, No.
Plaintiff respondent filed a suit in the year 1986 for declaration of his title as also permanent injunction.
10 Ex.
Hence it is appropriate to declare the possession and ownership by way of adverse possession of the plaintiff on the land in disputed land and the defendant Nos.
42/74 instituted by Hushiara and others, Bhagat Ram had denied the title of other companyowners on which suit for joint possession against present plaintiff Bhagat Ram was filed on 2 3 1968 for joint possession.
The suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed on 20.8.1986, that is, after about 18 years from the date of denial of title of defendants 1 to 22 A by the plaintiff.
DW 2/A, Ex.
The adverse possession as on the date of suit having companytinued for more than the statutory period of twelve years has, thus, ripened into ownership.
Bhagat Ram has denied the title of other companyowners during May, 1967 which led other companyowner to file suits for joint possession against present plaintiff Bhagat Ram which were admittedly dismissed as abatted on 24 12 1977 Ex.
1 to 22 from selling, leasing out and transferring the land by any means.
1 to 12, area 155 Bigha 0 Biswa of the land for 12 years.
Relief.
Since the companytesting defendants did number allow Bhagat Ram to have a share in the joint land of Panjoh, Bhagat Ram staked his claim of exclusive ownership in the disputed land situated at Samleu Pargna Chuhan and did number allow the companytesting defendants to have any share in the disputed land of Samleu for that reason.
By virtue of this suit, the plaintiffs therein, who are the defendants in the present case, had prayed for joint possession of the land, which is the subject matter of this suit.
Admittedly, the 1968 suit was dismissed in 1977 and the 1978 suit was dismissed in 1984.
However, it was observed therein that if the predecessors of the appellants do number give share to the plaintiff respondent in the land in village Punjoh, the plaintiff respondent may ask for the review of the order.
Referring to the two suits filed by the appellants herein, the High Court held Therefore, on the basis of the material companying on the record, especially in the form of Ex.
11 Ex.
P 1 in civil suit No.
P 15, it is evident that present plaintiff Bhagat Ram had asserted his hostile possession and ousters of other companyowners even during settlement in the year 1953 and as per the companyy of plaint Ex.
In para 3 of this plaint, it has been averred that the plaintiff in the present case, was in exclusive possession of the land in dispute and that he was asserting and claiming himself to be the sole owner thereof.
In paragraph 8 of the plaint, the plea of adverse possession was raised, which reads as under The plaintiff has been in possession as owner in adverse possession on the land of the defendant No.
1 to 22 A and to their knowledge at least since 1968.
By reason of a judgment and decree dated 9.10.1987, the learned Trial Judge opined that the plaintiff had been in exclusive companytinuous peaceful possession of the suit land to the exclusion of the other companyowners prior to settlement which took place in the year 1953.
1 to 22 A, since prior to 1952 53.
P 16 and No.
P 11 and Ex.
P 12, it is established that the plaintiff is companying in adverse possession of the land in dispute in companyplete denial of the title of the defendants No.
Indisputably, however, the appellants had filed two suits one in the year 1968 and another in 1978.
Therefore, it is proper to restrain the defendant Nos.
Analysing the evidences brought on records, the learned Trial Judge opined As per statements PW 1 Bhagat Ram plaintiff and Hishiara and others during settlement in the year 1953, as per companyies of Tankih No.
In the Second Appeal preferred by the appellants, the High Court while determining the same, opined In the present case, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that he is in companytinuous possession of the land in dispute in open and unequivocal denial of title of defendants No.
The Trial Court in view of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit property by adverse possession as alleged?
It is number in dispute that whereas the plaintiffs respondents had all along been in possession of the property situate in village Samleu, the appellants are in possession of village Punjoh.
B. Sinha, J. The defendants are the appellants.
The parties were companyowners.
The suit properties are situate in two villages 232 bighas and 10 biswas in village Samleu and 76 bighas in village Punjoh.
