The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific pleading and proof of adverse possession, the significance of mutation entries, and the rights of co-sharers in the property.

K.K. Lahoti, J.

1. Defendants aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court by which reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, suit of respondents/plaintiffs was decreed, have filed this second appeal.

2. Short facts are that, both the parties are closely related. Genealogical tree showing their relationship is as under :--

Puhkar | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | | | Bhagwat Rabuda Galau Khuman Mutkai Tidka (D-1925) (D-1946) (D-1932) (D-1947) (D-1948) (D-issueless) | | | | | | | | | | --------------------- | | | | | | | =Budia =|Chhutuwadi |@ Mohan Samanua @Mahraiwali |Mahroiwali | (D-1967) | | | = Sudhia | ------------------------------- | | | | | Natthoolal | Bhassu @ | | Dharamdas (D-6) | | | ----------------------------------- | | | | | Manik Sundar Sukhlal | (D-1) (D-2) | ----------------------------------- | | | | Jamuna Girdhari Daduli Jhulli (D-4) (D-5) (Pre-D. Puhar) (D-3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | Mirra Sudama Chhanga Manga Budhua Sudhua Madhua Fadali | | | | Bhura | (D-7) | -------------------------- | | Rajaram Laxminath (Plf-1) (Plf-2)

3. Suit was filed by Rajaram and Laxminath on the ground that plaintiffs are co-owner and joint-holder of agricultural lands, particulars of which are given in Para 1 of the plaint. Defendants are related to each other and are residents of Village Kothia Mohagama. Before ten to fifteen days of filing of the suit defendants entered in the fields of plaintiffs and wanted to encroach the land and threatened the plaintiffs for dire consequences. On 25th of June, 1976 the defendants again tried to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs. Defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit lands. In Para 5 (a) of the plaint, it is pleaded that disputed land belong to the ownership of deceased Tidka and Budia, who were the exclusive owners and in possession of the land. They have got the land in the partition. They were looked after by Mirra, the father of plaintiffs. On 2-6-63 the disputed lands were gifted to Mirra by deceased Tidka and Budia, out of love and affection and the services rendered by their father Mirra. Since then plaintiffs are in continuous possession of the disputed land as owners. Defendants were knowing their possession which was open, publicly and uninterrupted. By this way plaintiffs have acquired title over the suit land. On this ground the suit was filed for seeking mandatory and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land.

4. Appellants contested the suit on the ground that both the parties are closely related to each other. The genealogical tree, as stated hereinabove, stated in the written statement. They have specifically denied that any gift deed was executed in favour of plaintiffs. The possession of plaintiffs was also denied over the suit land. It was also stated by appellants that Budia alias Mah-roniawali and Tidka were the owners of the suit land and after their death, all heirs of Late Puhkar succeeded the land, as both died issueless. But, Mirra, father of plaintiffs had got mutated his name alongwith Tidka and Mst. Budia mischievously without any right or title. Over the land both the parties are cultivating and are co-sharers of the land. With the aforesaid pleading their suit was contested by the appellants.

5. Trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence, recorded the findings :--

(a) that disputed land belongs to Tidka and Budia;

(b) the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land;

(c) the land is not in possession of the plaintiffs;

(d) there is defect of non-joinder of necessary party;

(e) that Tidka and Budia have not gifted the land in favour of plaintiffs on 2-6-63;

(f) that plaintiffs have not been in adverse possession of land and have not acquir