A party cannot simultaneously claim title and adverse possession as they are mutually exclusive. Inheritance-based suits are not subject to limitation. A declaratory suit for agricultural land is maintainable without seeking possession, as the remedy for physical possession lies with revenue authorities through partition.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This is plaintiff’s appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1989, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sangrur, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.02.1985, passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Malerkotla, vide which the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff (Gulzari Begum) was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. One Sajawar Khan had three sons, namely, Ahmed Khan, Dilawar Jang Khan and Safder Jang Khan. Dilawar Jang Khan had two daughters, namely, Mukhtiar Begum (defendant No.3) and Gulzari Begum (plaintiff). Safdar Jang Khan had two wives Amina Begum and Hafizan Begum. From the marriage of Amina Begum, he had two sons, namely, Shaukat Ali Khan (defendant No.1) and Liakat Ali Khan (defendant No.2). One daughter of Ahmed Khan, namely, Zahida Begum was impleaded as defendant No.7. Defendants No.4 to 6 were the persons to whom some land is stated to have been alienated and were tenants on the said land.

4. Gulzari Begum instituted a suit for declaration that she along with defendant No.3 (Mukhtiar Begum) was the owner in possession of 1/3rd share of land owned by Sajawar Khan. The case set up was that Sajawar Khan was the owner of land measuring 18 kanals and 8 marlas (fully described in the plaint), situated at Village Malerkotla. Upon his death, the said land was inherited in equal shares by his three sons, namely, Ahmed Khan, Dilawar Jang Khan and Safder Jang Khan, vide mutation No.5990, dated 25.11.1968. Further, after the death of Safder Jang Khan, 1/3rd share devolved in equal shares upon defendants No.1 & 2 vide mutation No.5991, dated 25.11.1968. The case of the plaintiff was that defendants No.1 & 2, in connivance with revenue officials, got 1/3rd share of Dilawar Jang Khan mutated in their (defendants No.1 & 2) favour vide mutation No.5992, dated 25.11.1968. It was averred that this land was to be mutated in their favour since they were entitled to inherit 1/3rd share of Dilawar Jang Khan. It was claimed that the said mutation bearing No.5992 had been got executed behind the back of the plaintiff and defendant No.3, without any notice to them. Accordingly, the mutation No.5992, dated 25.11.1968, was not binding upon the plaintiff and defendant No.3.

4.1 It was claimed that defendants No.4 to 6, namely, Bashir, Babu and Sadiq had been cultivating the suit land for the last 20/25 years and had been paying Batai to the plaintiff as regards her share. It was also alleged that defendants No.1 & 2 had sold some part of the land to defendants No.4 to 6 and their father Hussaini alias Saini vide mutation No.11002, as a result of which they had been impleaded as parties in the suit.

5. Defendants No.1 & 2 opposed the suit. The stand taken was that the parties were governed by custom in matters of inheritance and succession, as per which the daughters of deceased did not inherit the land belonging to their father.

5.1 It was claimed that defendants No.1 & 2 had perfected their title by way of adverse possession since they were in possession of the suit land ever since muta