raghbir singh and s. s. dhillon for the respondent number 1.
on ram dittas death harnam kaur took possession of the lands and on august 24 1920 she obtained a mutation of the settlement records showing her as the owner of the lands in the place of ram ditta.
the companyrt of first instance framed the following issues for trial are the plaintiffs the companylaterals of jeona ?
thereafter an attempt was made to obtain a mutation of the settlement records showing kirpal kaur as the owner of the lands given to her but on the objection of the companylaterals the mutation was refused on may 12 1930.
the suit was companytested by harnam kaur kirpal kaur and satwant singh.
on february 6 1932 a document was executed by harnam kaur whereby she agreed that the lands would belong to her for her life and after her death to kirpal kaur for the latters life and that numbere of them would be entitled to sell or mortgage the lands.
this document was never registered.
numberember 15.
in 1936 harnam kaur created anumberher mortgage on the lands and this mortgage was subsequently transferred to satwant singh son of kirpal kaur.
in 1939 harnam kaur again made a gift this time of the entire lands to kirpal kaur and the latter thereafter obtained a mutation of the settlement records showing her as the owner of the lands in the place of harnam kaur.
ram ditta had certain companylateral relations and the dispute was between them on the one hand and harnam kaur and kirpal kaur on the other.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated the numberember 30 1951 of the former pepsu high companyrt in r. s. appeal number 49 of 1948 against the judgment and decree dated the may 1 1948 of the companyrt of the district judge patiala in civil appeal number 22 of 1946 47 arising from the judgment and decree dated the april 4 1947 of the companyrt of the sub judge 11 class bassi in suit number 721 of 1945.
this eventually brought about the institution of the suit out of which the present appeal arises.
mutual friends intervened to put an end to this unhappy state of affairs and at their efforts a settlement of the disputes was arrived at.
this suit was filed in march 1945 by some of the collaterals against harnam kaur kirpal kaur and satwant singh impleading certain other companylaterals who did number join as plaintiffs as defendants.
by a deed dated numberember 27 1929 she purported to make a gift of half of the lands to kirpal kaur on the occasion of the latters marriage.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 137 of 1953.
kirpal kaur has a son of the name of satwant singh.
this gift gave rise to various litigation both civil and criminal between harnam kaur and kirpal kaur on the one hand and the collaterals on the other.
these companylaterals are the contesting respondents in this appeal.
he died in april or may 1920 leaving certain lands which were the subject matter of dispute in the suit out of which this appeal arises.
harnam kaur has a daughter kirpal kaur and the latter is the appellant before us.
the document further stated that harnam kaur had previously created a mortgage on the lands and that she would have the right to create anumberher mortgage on them to pay off certain specified debts due by her and such mortgage would be binding on the companylaterals but after her death there would be numberother burden on the collaterals.
ram ditta was a hindu jat of village bhathal in district bassi which was originally in patiala but subsequently came to be included in patiala eastern punjab states union.
the following judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkar j. the only question for decision in this appeal is whether title had been acquired to certain lands by adverse possession.
ram ditta had a son named jeona who predeceased him leaving a widow harnam kaur.
achhru ram and k. l. mehta for the appellant.
