The Civil Court has the power to grant relief to do substantial justice between the parties.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

C.M. No. 15701-C-2017 & C.M. No. 15006-C-2017

Both these miscellaneous applications shall be considered while deciding the main case.

MAIN

2. Defendants-appellants are in regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below.

3. In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present case:-

(i) Whether the Civil Court has a power to mould the relief under Order 7 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC so as to do substantial justice between the parties by playing a pro-active role?

(ii) Whether the trial Court and the first appellate Court have misdirected while deciding the suit and the first appeal or not?

(iii) Whether a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs claiming that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession is maintainable or not?

(iv) Whether plaintiffs who have indulged in continuous litigation in one Court/revenue authorities or the other can thereafter claim that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession while including the period spent in the litigation or not?

FACTS

4. Plaintiff and defendants are owners of certain land in village Bindhrauli, which was subject matter of consolidation of holdings under The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1948') in the year 1970-71. As per the plaint, after preparation of the scheme of consolidation of holdings, proceedings for re-partition took place on 25.02.1971. Certain land previously owned by the plaintiff was allotted to the defendants, whereas certain land previously owned by the defendants was allotted to the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed objections, which were dismissed by the Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings exercising the powers of Settlement Officer on 19.09.1975. Appeal against the same was dismissed on 24.07.1976 while making slight change. Further petition under Section 42 of the Act of 1948 was decided by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, exercising the powers of the Government, vide order dated 12.05.1977 again allowing some changes. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings dated 12.05.1977 has become final between the parties.

5. During the course of hearing of the present appeal, a status report was asked from the office of the Director General Consolidation of Holdings and affidavits have been filed, stating that Rattan Singh son of Khubi Ram(predecessor of the plaintiffs) was delivered possession on 15.06.1971, whereas possession of the land allotted to Sh. Amar Singh son of Mohar Singh was delivered on 16.06.1971. However, thereafter, proceedings for sanction of the mutation were initiated and following events took place:-

“4. That the consolidation of the Village Bindhroli was finalised in 1971 and the record was submitted to the Revenue Department on 02.03.1973. As per the Register of Proceedings of Consolidation, possession of the land allotted to Sh. Rattan Singh son of Sh. Khubi was given on 15.06.1971. Similarly, the possession of land allotted to Sh. Amar Singh son of Mohar Singh was handed over on 16.06.1971. Further, in pursuance of the decisions passed by the Consolidation Authorities, mutations for the said lands allotted to Sh. Rattan Singh and Sh. Amar Singh, amongst others, was sanctioned as under:-

Sr. No.	Mutation No.	Date of Sanction of Mutation	Order of sanction of mutation
1	1225	08.03.1989 (Mutation cancelled vide order dated 16.01.1992 of Collector, Sonipat to the extent of shares of Rattan Singh and Amar Singh	Order dated 19.09.1975 passed by Assistant Director Consolidation.
2	1227	08.03.1989 (Mutation cancelled by Tehsildar, Sonipat on 14.03.2012)	Order date