JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. Introduction qnc[ Background : This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff (now appellant through his LRs) of the case against the reversal of judgment, in as much as his suit for declaration regarding the property in dispute, was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 23.01.1995, but the appeal of defendants (respondents herein) was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri on 10.12.1997, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

2. For clarity, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. The Trial Court record, as available on the Document Management System (DMS) of this Court, has been duly perused.

3.1 Plaintiffs Casej The plaintiff instituted the present suit in March 1986, asserting ownership and possession over the suit land measuring 159 Kanai situated in village Kapuri Kalan, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. He claimed to be in actual physical possession of the land for over 35 years, and prior to him, his forefathers were in possession. According to the plaintiff, his possession was open, continuous, and hostile to the knowledge of the entire world, thereby ripening into ownership by way of adverse possession.

3.2 It was pleaded that Kehar Singh son of Jawala Singh was recorded as owner in Column No. 4 of the Jamabandi for the years 1954-55 to 1983-84, but he was never seen in the village nor did he ever demand rent or assert any ownership rights. Even during the Istemal and Consolidation proceedings of 1953 and later in 1962, Kehar Singh did not appear before the authorities, and appropriate notes to that effect were recorded in the Jamabandis for 1954-55 and 1963-64. The plaintiff further relied on the entries in Column No. 10 of the Jamabandi for the year 1954-55, showing his possession as "Bila Lagan Bawajah Kabza", which continued unchanged thereafter. He contended that Kehar Singh had not been seen in the village since 1950, and the defendants had no concern whatsoever with the suit property.

3.3 According to the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by claiming themselves to be the relatives of Kehar Singh, managed to get Mutation No. 186 dated 02.12.1985 sanctioned in their favour on the basis of an alleged Will dated 06.10.1985, purportedly executed by Kehar Singh. Defendant No. 2 Harnek Singh being a retired Patwari, allegedly connived with revenue officials to secure the said mutation. The plaintiff, therefore, sought a declaration that he is the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and that Mutation No. 186 is illegal, void, and not binding upon him.

3.4 During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 suffered a consent decree dated 03.12.1991 in Civil Suit No. 663 of 1991 in favour of defendant No. 3 Gurdeep Singh. On an application under Order, I Rule 10 CPC, Gurdeep Singh was impleaded as a party. Consequently, the plaintiff amended his plaint, seeking an additional declaration that the said decree passed in CS No.663 of 1991, dated 03.12.1991, in suit titled 'Gurdeep Singh v. Mahinder Singh and others' passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Jagadhri, was illegal, null, void, and not binding on his rights. He further contended that the mutation entered in favour of defendant No. 3 on the basis of that decree was equally illegal and ineffective.

4. Stand of defendants - respondents: Defendants in their joint written statement, contested the claim, asserting that Kehar Singh had given the suit land on batai (share-cropping) to the plaintiff in 1954-55, and since then, the plaintiff had been cultivating the same as a tenant and paying batai regularly to Kehar Singh. It was further stated that Kehar Singh and Smt. Bachittar Kaur were maurusi (occupancy) tenants prior to 1952, and vide Mutation No. 317 dated 03.11.1954, they became owners of the land. After Kehar Singh's death, the defendants N: 1 & 2 claimed ownership by succession based on the Will dated 06.10.1985, on which Mutation No. 186 dated 02.