Rakesh Kumar Garg J.:- By way of present appeal, defendant No.1 has approached this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of plaintiffs(respondent Nos.1 to 6) for possession has been decreed.

2. Plaintiffs-respondents filed the present suit on the averments that they were owners of the suit land and prior to them their father was the owner of the suit land. The suit land was mortgaged by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs with one Munshi Ram. The suit land was got redeemed by their father after paying the mortgage money to the mortgagee and the physical possession was delivered to their father. Mutation No.2152 was also sanctioned in favour of their father regarding redemption of the suit land. However, during the period of mortgage some stray entry of possession in the column was entered in the name of defendants(i.e.appellant) as well as predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.7 to 15 concerning the suit land. Afterwards, the aforesaid entries were corrected. It was further averred that the plaintiffs were in physical possession of the suit land as owners but on 27.05.2001 in the absence of plaintiffs the defendants forcibly took possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to restore the possession of the suit land but the defendants refused. Thus the possession of the defendants over the suit land was unauthorized. Hence the suit for possession of the suit land.

3. Upon notice, defendants filed written statement taking preliminary objections including that another suit titled as ‘Ishar Singh etc.vs.Sukhdev Singh’ had already been filed by them concerning the suit land. On merits, it was submitted that the suit land was cultivated on 1/3rd batai since lifetime of Pritam Singh father of the defendants and after the death of Pritam Singh the suit land had fallen to the share of the defendants in a family settlement and since then they were in cultivating possession of the suit land on 1/3rd batai which was being paid to the landlord/owner. It was further submitted that in the month of May 1995, from the copies of khasra girdawari it was found that the land stands in the ownership and cultivation column in the name of plaintiffs and the name of the father of defendants do not exist in the revenue record. It was averred that the entries in the revenue record were changed by playing fraud upon the defendants. It was also submitted that the suit land was neither got redeemed by the father of the plaintiffs nor the possession was delivered to him. The entries in the revenue record regarding redemption of mortgage were not correct. While making the change in khasra girdawari proper procedure was not followed as no notice was given to the defendants who were in possession of the suit land. It was further submitted that Pritam Singh, father of the defendants was in cultivating possession as tenant on 1/3rd batai since 1950 and after his death the defendants were in possession as tenants on 1/3rd batai under the plaintiffs and were paying the batai regularly. It was further submitted that possession of the defendants of the suit land was legal, continuous, without any interruption, peaceful and within the knowledge of the plaintiffs since the very beginning and now the possession has ripened into ownership of the defendants. Denying the other averments contained in the plaint, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of suit land as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the defendants have taken forcibly and illegally possession of suit land from the plaintiff as alleged?OPP

3. If issue No.1 and 2 proved, whether plaintiffs are entitled to possession of suit land as alleged?OPP

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have not filed proper court fees as alleged?OPD

6. Whether the