The court emphasized the importance of timely and permissible amendment of pleadings, the necessity of locus standi for challenging a judgment on behalf of another party, and the significance of parties' presence in the appeal process.

JUDGMENT :

Kuldip Singh, J.

The defendant No.7 has come in appeal against judgment, decree dated 24.11.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1991 modifying judgment, decree dated 18.12.1990 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur Camp at Ghumarwin in Civil Suit No. 15-1 of 1990/87. The names of respondents No. 2 to 13 were deleted vide order dated 11.4.2002 subject to all just exceptions. The parties in this judgment are referred as plaintiff and defendants.

2. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he is in adverse possession of land measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 5 and 1 bigha in khasra No. 4 village Jajjar, Tehsil Ghumarwin. The defendants are threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and, therefore, plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering over the suit land, in alternative the suit for possession.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No.7, he took preliminary objections of maintainability, valuation, estoppel, locus-standi and cause of action. He has pleaded sale in his favour by defendants No. 1 to 4 and thus owner in possession of the suit land. The defendant No.6 filed separate written statement and stated that plaintiff was tenant on the suit land. She admitted that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession. The defendants No.1 to 5 filed separate written statement and have raised preliminary objections of maintainability, valuation, limitation, locus-standi and cause of action. It has been stated that defendant Jagdish Ram is owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff filed replication and reiterated the case set up by him in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner in possession over the suit land by virtue of adverse possession as alleged' OPP

2. Whether the defendants are interfering over the suit land as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit land if found to be dis-possessed during the pendency of the suit as alleged? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not properly valued as alleged? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not within limitation as alleged? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit as alleged? OPD

8. Relief. The issue No.1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were answered in negative, issue No. 4 in affirmative. Under issue No.2, it has been held that question of defendants interfering over the suit land does not arise. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 18.12.1990. The plaintiff filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1990. On 11.5.2000, the learned District Judge framed additional issue: 7-A: Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land by way of inheritance? OPP The learned District Judge directed the trial Court to record findings on issue No.7-A after recording evidence of the parties.

4. The trial Court recorded findings on 20.10.2000 on issue No.7-A and held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land nor he was owner thereof. The issue No.7-A was decided against the plaintiff. In appeal, the learned District Judge on 24.11.2000 affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1990 including the findings on additional issue No.7-A except to the extent that the plaintiff has acquired tenancy rights in respect of five biswas of land comprised in Khasra No.4 which belongs to Smt. Narain Dei defendant No.6. The second appeal has been filed only by defendant No.7 which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the Distt. Judge could decree the suit to the extent of the share of Smt. Narain Dei who admittedly had relinquished her rights in the suit land in view of her statement on record of the case?

2. Whether the first appellate court can allow time barred ame