The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit land, although partible, vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Village Common Lands Act, making it non-partible and against the provisions of the Act to allow partition.

Surinder Gupta, J.

This is appeal by defendants Pona and others, residents of village Chulkana Tehsil and District Sonepat, against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was partly decreed and they were held entitled to protect their possessory rights over the suit land and the defendants appellants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the disputed property except in due course of law.

2. The suit land is 86 kanals 6 marlas as fully defined in para 1 of the plaint. The plaintiffs alleged that they are owners in exclusive cultivating possession of the suit land since 1950 to the knowledge of all including the defendants without payment of any rent. The entries in the revenue record showing their possession as gair marusi are wrong and against facts. Being in continuous and open possession to the knowledge of all, they have acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession.

3. The defendants filed application for partition of the suit land along with other land of Pana Jaidan before Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sonepat. The suit land could not be partitioned as per terms of Wazib-ul-arz. Despite having knowledge of this fact, defendants entered into conspiracy to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs. It is alleged that application filed by defendants seeking partition of the land before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was not maintainable and the plaintiffs have the right to protect their possession over the suit land.

4. The plaintiffs also sought permission to file suit in representative capacity for and on behalf of owners of Pana Jaidan. The relief sought by the plaintiffs in the suit as mentioned in para 11 of the plaint reads as follows:-

"11. That it is, therefore, prayed that a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants, restraining the defendants from getting the land partitioned and from interfering into the cultivating possession as owners of the land in suit of the plaintiff, permanently, in any way by show of force or violence, along with the costs of the suit on the grounds given in the plaint. Any other relief that the hon'ble Court may deem fit be also awarded to the plaintiff."

5. The defendants contested the claim of plaintiffs in the written statement, inter-alia pleading that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land jointly but they are recorded to be in possession of same separately and over separate killa numbers. They also raised objection that area of land bearing killa no.157/8min (2-0) is not in possession of any of the plaintiffs and killa No.157/15 min measuring 3 kanals 4 marlas does not exist. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land is as co-sharers, as such, they could not seek the declaration of their title over the same by way of adverse possession.

6. The defendants further pleaded that suit land is partible and defendants have got right to get it partitioned. Suit land along with other land of Pana Jaidan of the village measuring 338 kanals 2 marlas was wrongly mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat, Chulkana. Proprietors of Pana Jaidan filed civil suit against Gram Panchayat, which was decided in their favour and mutation was sanctioned in favour of proprietors of Pana Jaidan as "Shamlat Pana Jaidan Hasab Rasad Raqba Khewat". The plaintiffs were also party to that suit, as such, cannot plead that the suit land does not belong to Pana Jaidan and that they have become owner of it by adverse possession. Any entry in Sharat Wazib-ul-arz that suit land cannot be partitioned is wrong in fact and in law and has no binding effect on the parties. The defendants have resorted to possible legal mode of partition by initiating partition proceeding before the revenue authorities. It is the plaintiffs, who were creating trouble in getting the suit land partitioned by filing applications one after the other and were not allowing the defendants to proceed wit