TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (9) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 40 dismissed the suit. The Addl. District Judge, Barnala reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit in Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1965 by judgment and decree dated November 28, 1973. The High Court confirmed the appellate decree. One Wazira Singh died surviving three sons Sukhi, Surjan and Sarwan through his first wife, Mahla Singh son and Parsinni and Chinto two minor daughters through his second wife. Wazira had died on 5.11.1984 B.K. Parsinni is the 1st defendant and Chinto died leaving behind her children defendant Nos. 2 to 5. From the evidence it would be clear that, after the death of Wazira, there was a division of the properties by meets and bounds and 53 kanals 12 marlas were left in the possession of Parsinni and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by prescription, after their marriage for having been in possession for more than 30 years. The suit was also held to have been barred by limitation. Accordingly it dismissed the suit. The appellate court reversed the decree holding that the revenue entries disclose that the appellants remained in possession as owners along with their brothers and no specific share was given. Therefore, they did not acquire any separate right. The respondents claimed possession and proprietary right therein and entries in revenue records do not disclose having been lost their title for more than 12 years. Therefore, they became owners of the land and remained to be owners and possession being not adverse the appellants did not acquire title by prescription.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... possession of the land by the respondents. Even after consolidation also the lands remained to be in their possession and enjoyment and recorded as owners. 5. The appellants claimed adverse possession. The burden undoubtedly lies on them to plead and prove that they remained in possession in their own right adverse to the respondents. In fact, they have pleaded and succeeded and the trial court accepted with the findings thus, "The defendants 1 to 5 were accepted as owners to the extent of 1/ 3rd share in the estate of Wazira and they continued to hold their shares as such owners till the present day. There is absolutely no material on record to show that the plaintiffs were the owners or shared with the ownership of defendants Nos. 1 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is sufficient for them to show that their possession is overt and without any attempt at concealment so that the respondent against whom time is running, ought, if to exercise due vigilance to be aware of what is happening. The possession of the appellants was adverse to the respondents inasmuch as the respondents ever since the marriage of the first appellant and her sister Chinto continued to remain in possession and enjoyment of the property in derogation of the right, title and interest hitherto held by the respondents. When they openly and to the knowledge of the respondents continuously remained in possession and enjoyment and the entries in the revenue records established that their possession and enjoyment is as owners, the consent ....