The main legal point established is that adverse possession cannot be granted unless all co-owners of the land are impleaded as co-parties in the suit, and prior permission of the court is essential to file a suit in representative capacity when filed for the benefit of other co-owners.

JUDGMENT :

P.S. Rana, J.

Present Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge–I Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 23-N/2000 titled Jarmej Singh vs. Hazauro whereby learned Additional District Judge-I Kangra at Dharamshala had affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court i.e. Civil Judge Court No. II Nurpur District Kangra in Civil Suit No. 61 of 1995 titled Jarmet Singh and others vs. Hazauro.

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that Jarmej Singh and other plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of land comprised in Khata No. 85, Khatauni No. 274 min Khasra No. 18, 25 plots 2 measuring 0-34-99 HM situated in Tikka mauja Thapkaur Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra. It is pleaded that plaintiffs are co-sharers along with other co-sharers and defendant is stranger to the suit land. It is further pleaded that defendant is also trespasser of suit land and defendant has no right title or interest over the suit land. It is also pleaded that neither the defendant is tenant over the suit land nor defendant was inducted as tenant over the suit land by the plaintiffs. It is pleaded that plaintiffs have asked the defendant to admit the claim of the plaintiffs but defendant refused to do so. Decree for possession in favour of plaintiffs and against defendant sought

3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable in present form and suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also pleaded that plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit and plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit and plaintiffs have also not come to Court with clean hands. It is denied that suit land is Shamlat deh and it is also denied that plaintiffs are co-owners over the suit land. Title of plaintiffs over the suit land is also denied. It is pleaded that other co-owners are necessary parties. It is pleaded that suit land has been allotted to the defendant by H.P. Government under the H.P. Village Common Land and Utilization Scheme 1975 and plaintiffs have no right title or interest over the suit land as same was allotted to the defendant. It is pleaded that mutation of suit land was illegally rejected by Settlement Collector. In alternative, defendant also pleaded right of adverse possession over the suit land. It is pleaded that plaintiffs have no cause of action and prayer for dismissal of suit is sought.

4. As per the pleadings of parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 9.9.1996:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the possession of the suit land? OPP

2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties if so who is necessary party? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file this suit? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs have got no enforceable cause of action against the defendant? OPD

7. Whether the suit land had been allotted to the defendant by the H.P. Government under H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Scheme 1975 if so its effect? OPD

8. Whether the defendant in the alternative has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD

9. Relief.

5. Parties examined following oral witnesses in supported of their case:-

6. Parties produced following documentary evidence in support of their case:-