JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (here-in-after referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellants–defendants, who is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.11.1995 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Jind, whereby the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 11.06.1992 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Safidon came to be modified. By way of the instant appeal, the appellants have respectfully invoked the second appellate jurisdiction of this Court, seeking restoration of the decree lawfully granted by the learned Trial Court. It is contended that the impugned judgment has occasioned a serious miscarriage of justice, warranting interference by this Court, and therefore the appellants pray that the decree passed by the learned Trial Court be reinstated in its original form.

2. The factual matrix and the sequence of events preceding, and ultimately culminating in, the institution of the present appeal may be briefly delineated as under:-

“The plaintiff’s case is that Hardei, widow of Bakhtawar, was the recorded owner of agricultural land measuring 26 kanals 5 marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 50, Khatoni No. 67, Rect. No. 2, Killa Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25, situated in the revenue estate of village Titokheri, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, as reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 (here-in-after referred to as “the suit land”). It is pleaded that Hardei died about 35–36 years prior to the institution of the suit, leaving behind no legal heirs and having died intestate.

The plaintiff asserts that the suit land was originally ‘gair mumkin thur’, which he reclaimed through substantial expenditure and labour, and that he has remained in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession, thereby claiming title by adverse possession. It is further averred that the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Safidon, vide order dated 28.02.1985, sanctioned Mutation No. 328 declaring the property to have escheated to the State, which order is challenged on the ground that it was passed without impleading or hearing the plaintiff, despite his alleged possession.

Accordingly, the plaintiff, acting through his Special Power of Attorney holder Balbir Singh, sought a decree of declaration declaring him owner in possession of the suit land, along with a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or dispossessing him from the suit property. Hence the suit.”

3. Upon due service of summons, the defendants entered appearance before the Court and filed their written statement, wherein the following submissions and pleas were set forth for consideration:-

“Defendants appeared raised preliminary objections that the suit was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, not maintainable in its present form, and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction in view of Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had no locus standi, that the suit was improperly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, and that it was barred for want of notice under Section 80 CPC.

On merits, while admitting that Hardei was the owner of the suit land, the defendants asserted that she died 35–36 years earlier without leaving any legal heir, as a consequence of which the property escheated to the State of Haryana, which thereby became its lawful owner. The defendants denied that the land was gair mumkin thur or that it had been reclaimed by the plaintiff.

It was further pleaded that the mutation was entered on 07.03.1984, and upon objections raised by the Gram Panchayat, the matter was referred to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Safidon as a contested mutation. After hearing the parties and issuing public notice through publication in “Punjab Kesri” dated 08.01.1985, the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the State of Haryana on 28.02.1985. It was also stated that no claimant, except Banwari, appear