1. These two petitions raise akin and analogues issues and have, therefore, been clubbed together for determination and decision. At the threshold, the facts, as these emerge from the study of both the petitions, require to be delineated.

CIA No. 22/2013

2. In this appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Reasi, in the Civil suit titled "Daulat Ram & Anr Vs. Roop Chand & Ors.", whereby the suit of the appellants has been dismissed on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove the oral partition interse Bijhan and Nathu during their life time as also the claim of adverse possession qua the suit property.

3. The substratum of the appeal is that the appellants have proved their ownership rights and possession viz-a-viz the suit property, but the trial court misread the statement of the Patwari and passed the judgment and decree, which is liable to be set aside. Nathu and Bhijan had during their life time by way of a private settlement, partitioned their property and got the possession of their respective shares. In this partition, Bhijan got the possession of the land held by Nathu and vice-versa. However, the trial court failed to consider the effect of the oral partition between the two brothers named above and passed the judgment and decree. The trial Court has failed to consider the affidavits filed by the Appellants in support of their claim. It also failed to consider the mutation relied upon by the appellants to prove their ownership and possession over the suit land. The finding returned by the learned trial Court that there is no partition is illegal and contrary to the law. The respondent Nos. 1 to 7 have derived their title through Nathu. While filing the suit, the appellants sought a declaration that the sale deed dated 29th of September, 2006 and executed on 1st September, 2006 by defendants Nos. 1 to 07 through defendant No.8 in favour of the defendants Nos. 9 to 11 vis-à-vis the suit land is null and void in view of the fact that the land situated at village Kundrodian, is owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. The appellants, also took the plea that they have become the owners by adverse possession and as such, possessed a better title as against the others including the defendants, but the Court below gailed to appreciate the facts and the law governing the subject in the right perspective and passed the judgment and decree which on the face of it is bad, perverse and dehors the law.

OWP No. 178/2015

4. In this petition the petitioners (appellants in the CIA) have pleaded that their grandfather Bijhan and Late Nathu were real brothers. They were the owners of the land situated at village Kundrodian, Tehsil Katri and village Sarnah, Tehsil Reasi. Both the brothers mutually decided and agreed that the land possessed by Bijhan in village Kundrodian would be held by and remain in the possession of the elder brother Bijhan, whereas the land situated at Sarnah, Tehsil Reasi will be held by and remain in the possession of Nathu. In this way both the brothers Bijhan and Nathu had privately divided and partitioned the land amongst themselves. On the demise of Bijhan the mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of Nek Ram & Ors i.e. the legal heirs of Bijhan vis-a-vis the land situated at Kundrodian Tehsil Katra. Neither Nathu nor his legal heirs were ever in the possession of any portion of the land situated at Kundrodian. They have been recorded as “Ghair Hazir”, “Ghair Kabiz” (meaning the absentees and not holding the possession of the land) in the revenue record and as such they could not file a petition for partition, without filing a suit for possession as the same is a condition precedent for seeking partition in terms of Partition Rules. The respondent No.4 to 6 claim to have purchased the land situated at village Kundrodian, Tehsil Reasi, District Udhampur from Birbal and Ors. On the basis of the Sale Deed they fil