The plea of adverse possession can be allowed to be taken in the interest of both the parties and for finally deciding the dispute between the parties.

ORDER :- In this revision petition, the petitioners-defendants have assailed the order of the learned District Judge, Una. dated 25-111994 in C.M. Application No. 203/94 passed in Court Appeal No .3/1992, R.B T. No. 228/93. The learned Court below rejected the application under Order 6, Rule 1 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement with the alternative plea regarding adverse possession.

2. Brief facts of the case are that land comprising of Khasra Nos. 1095 and 1113 was owned by Lachhman Dass but in possession of Meghoo qua 2/3rd share and Dehru alias Piara for the remaining share as tenants-at-will. Both of them died before coming into force of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1975 and, therefore, the tenancy of Meghoo was inherited by Udham Singh, plaintiff and Prem Singh in equal shares, Dehru succeeded by his sons Gurbachan Singh and Puran Singh, defendants. They claimed that proprietary rights were conferred upon them, but in the revenue record Prem Singh was shown as tenant, and thereafter, as owner of 1/3rd share in the suit land. Plaintiff (respondent No. 1 ) filed a suit for declaration that Prem Singh was not the son of Meghoo and therefore, he could not succeed tenancy rights in equal share of the plaintiff. Therefore entries in the revenue record showing Prem Singha owner of 1/3rd share were incorrect. It was further alleged that he was in possession of the whole 2/3rd share of Meghoo in the suit land firstly as tenant, then as an owner on coming into force of the H. P. tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1975. On these facts he prayed for issuance of permanent injunction.

3. In the written statement it was not disputed that the plaintiff was son of Meghoo, but pleaded that Prem Singh was adopted, treated and brought up as on of Meghoo and, therefore, after his death Prem Singh succeeded to the tenancy rights of Meghoo along with the plaintiff in equal shares and thereafter he obtained the proprietary rights.

4. Issue were framed and after obtaining the evidence of the parties, the learned Sub-Judge rejected the plea that Prem Singh was the adopted son of Meghoo and he was entitled to succeed the tenancy rights of Meghoo. It was also held that plaintiff was succeeded to whole of 2/3rd share of late Meghoo as tenant and then acquired the proprietary rights under the law and further the entries in the revenue record were wrong. Hence the present petition for taking the plea of adverse possession.

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

6. Through it has been urged by relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Bagar v. naim-un-Nisa Bibi, AIR 1956 SC 548 that possession o one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers and it cannot be adverse to them, Unless there is a denial of their right to their knowledge by the person in possession, and exclusion and ouster following thereon, and for the statutory period. I am of the opinion that this law will apply at the time o passing the final order.

7. Another decision on which reliance has been places is Sabura Ammal v. Ali Mohamed Nachiar, AIR 1970 Mad 411. In may opinion, this decision will come at the time of considering the final decision of the case.

8. The attention of this court has bee drawn to Haji Mohammed Ishaq Wd. S. K. Mohammmed v. Mohammed iqbal and Mohamed Ali, AIR 1978 SC 798 to bring home the point that in an application under Order 6, Rule 17 and Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding amendment of the written statement introducing a new case additional evidence should not be allowed. This court is of the opinion that this is not the case of additional evidence, as it is to be decided whether plea of adverse possession has to be allowed. The Court can definitely take the judicial notice of adverse possession if it comes of evidence, even if not pleaded.

9. The Apex Court in C. M. Vereekutty v. C. M. Mathukutty C. M, AIR 1981 SC 1533 has held that in a suit for partition with pra