The judgment emphasizes the requirement of open, peaceful, and hostile possession for adverse possession claims and the presumption that possession of one co-owner is possession of all co-owners.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J :

By way of this appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs have challenged judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 60-S/13 of 2006 dated 01.06.2007 vide which, learned appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the present respondents/defendants against the judgment passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 5-K/1 of 2002 dated 03.05.2006.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as =the plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants on the grounds that plaintiffs and proforma defendant No. 4 were co-owners in joint possession of half share in 8 plots of land measuring 13 bighas and 5 biswas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 15, 23, 55, 57, 73, 81, 95 and 109, Kitas 8, entered at Khewat No. 4, Khatoni No. 5, situated in village Mahog, Pargna Chail, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. as per Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 alongwith the defendants. As per the plaintiffs, the suit land was in joint possession and ownership of Shri Dhingia to the extent of 1/4th share, Shri Mehar Singh to the extent of 1/4th share and Shri Motia, who was owner to the extent of ½ share in the year 1966-67 Bikrami. Shri Dhingia, who was co-owner of the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share sold his share by way of a registered sale deed dated 18 Kartika, 1967 Bikrami in favour of Shri Biru, son of Shri Haria. Shri Dhingia expired after the execution of the sale deed and the factum of the sale could not be incorporated in the revenue records during the life time of Shri Dhingia. Mutation No. 6 on the basis of the said sale deed was attested on 11th Maghar, Samvat 1967 Bikrami. Further, as per the plaintiffs, Dhingia died issueless and his estate was inherited by Shri Mehar Singh, son of Shri Shonku vide mutation No. 9 attested on 16th Jaisth, 1969 Bikrami. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that it appeared from the records that Dhingia, who was owner only of 1/4th share in the land measuring 13 bighas and 5 biswas, i.e. the suit land appeared to have executed the deed of sale by mistake with respect to the entire suit land. According to the plaintiffs, Dhingia could not have sold the land in its entirety as he had no right, title or interest of any kind over the entire suit land save and except his share. It was further the case put up by the plaintiffs that from the records it appeared that Mehar Singh, who was to inherit the estate of Shri Dhingia objected to the attestation of mutation, but revenue officer attested the same by exceeding his jurisdiction. As per the plaintiffs, Biru could not have purchased the land through sale deed dated 11th Maghar, Samvat 1967 Bikrami in excess of 1/4th share in the suit land. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that Motia who was co-owner in joint possession to the extent of ½ share died in the year 1968 Bikrami and his estate devolved upon his son Shri Jash Ram through mutation No. 8 attested on 16th Jaisht, 1969 Bikrami. As per the plaintiffs, though after the death of Shri Dhingia and Motia the suit land should have been shown to be owned and possessed by Shri Biru to the extent of 1/4th share, Shri Mehar Singh to the extent of 1/4th share and Shri Jash Ram to the extent of ½ share, but the revenue entries did not depict the correct position. According to the plaintiffs, on the basis of the said wrong revenue entries, the defendants were trying to derive undue advantage. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Shri Biru, his estate devolved upon Smt. Niharikhi his wife, who died issueless and her estate devolved upon Shri Jonki, who was brother of Biru. After the death of Shri Jonki, his estate devolved upon his son Jhamtu. According to the plaintiffs, though the revenue entries should have reflected Jhamtu to be owne