Thereupon Gurbinder Singh and Balbinder Singh.
1 in this appeal.
Out of this land 481 kanals 7 marlas was in her possession as occupancy tenant, the landlord being the Raja of Faridkot while the remaining land was held by Smt.
These suits were decreed on March 12, 1938 and in execution of the decrees obtained in these suits the Raja took possession of the entire land in October 1938.
Raj Kaur who had two daughters Prem Kaur and Mahan Kaur, adopted the formers son Bakshi Singh and put him in possession of the whole of the land.
Bakshi Singh transferred part of the land to Pratap Singh, second son of Mahan Kaur, who is respondent No.
who are the appellants before us, filed a suit for pre emption of the land against Kehar Singh and obtained a decree in their favour.
In the absence of any appeal by Prem Kaur against the decision of the High Court companyfirming the dismissal of her suit we have only to companysider the claim of the respondents to half the property left by Raj Kaur.
To that suit he joined Prem Kaur and Pratap Singh as defendants.
On April 7, 1948 he sold the entire land along with some other land to one Kehar Singh for Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 21, 1958 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Regular Second Appeal No.
In the year 1915 the Raja of Faridkot filed a suit against Bakshi Singh and Raj Kaur in the companyrt of Sub Judge, Faridkot for a declaration that the adoption of Bakshi Singh was invalid.
Ignoring for the time being their relationship with Raj Kaur, what can be said is that they were adversely in possession to the true owners, that is, Prem Kaur and Mahan Kaur, daughters of Raj Kaur as from August 14, 1930.
Mahan Kaur had in fact died on July 13, 1938, i.e. before the Raja obtained possession.
In execution of that decree they got possession of the land on June 22, 1950.
Before, however, they companyld perfect their title against Prem Kaur and Mahan Kaur the Raja instituted a suit for possession, obtained a decree thereunder and actually entered into possession to the entire land in October, 1938.
The suit of Prem Kaur was dismissed by the trial companyrt but that of the respondents was decreed to the extent of half share in the property.
Though the Raja obtained possession under a decree of the companyrt he was in the eye of law numberhing but a trespasser in so far as the heirs of Raj Kaur, her daughters Prem Kaur and Mahan Kaur were companycerned.
84,357 5 0.
Raj Kaur as Adna Malik, the Aala malik again being the said Raja of Faridkot.
As already stated, Bakshi Singh and Pratap Singh were in possession of the entire land belonging to Raj Kaur.
1, filed a suit for possession of the entire land against the Raja of Faridkot and Kehar Singh.
On February 17, 1950, Lal Singh, respondent No.
Their claim was resisted by the appellants on several grounds in the companyrts below.
Later, however, Pratap Singh was transposed as a plaintiff.
A second appeal was taken by the appellants as well as by Prem Kaur to the High Court and cross objections were preferred by the respondents.
Prem Kaur and the appellants preferred appeals before the District Court but that companyrt dismissed both the appeals.
Raj Kaur was in possession of 851 kanals 18 marlas of land situate in village Dhaipai in the former State of Faridkot.
Raj Kaur died on August 14, 1930.
263 P of 1952.
On October 20, 1948 Mst.
Mahan Kaur had one more son Lal Singh and he is respondent No.
Both the suits were companysolidated and were tried together.
Later she impleaded the appellants as defendants to that suit and discharged the Raja of Faridkot.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On February 19, 1934 the Raja filed two suits against Bakshi Singh and Pratap Singh for possession of the aforementioned lands, one pertaining to the land of which Raj Kaur was occupancy tenant and the other for that of the land of which she was Adna malik.
Prem Kaur instituted a suit for possession of the entire land on the ground that she was the legal heir of Raj Kaur against Kehar Singh and the Raja of Faridkot.
431 of 1963.
R.L. lyengar, S.K. Mehta and K.L. Mehta, for the respondents.
Tarachand Brijmohanlal, for the appellants.
This suit was decreed on February 9, 1916.
The High Court dismissed these appeals as well as the cross objections.
In Samvat 1953 A.D.1896 Smt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. The only question for companysideration in this appeal by certificate from the High Court of Punjab is whether the suit for possession instituted by the respondents Lal Singh and Pratap Singh is within time.
2 in the appeal.
142 and is within time.
In order to appreciate the companytentions it is necessary to set out the relevant facts which are numberlonger in dispute.
