A co-owner claiming possession of agricultural land remains in joint possession unless ouster is proved; however, civil courts lack jurisdiction to decree exclusive physical possession of such land, as partition is the exclusive domain of revenue authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J .

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (here-in-after to be referred as,“RSA” for short) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the appeal preferred by the defendants– appellants was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court were set aside, resulting in dismissal of the suit instituted by the plaintiff–respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellant–plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

2. Succinctly stated, the appellant–plaintiff instituted a suit for possession of the suit land, fully detailed and described in the headnote of the plaint, situated in the revenue estates of village Gopalon and Ram Bagh. It was pleaded that Bachan Singh had two sons, namely Waryam Singh and Sham Singh. Waryam Singh had a son Joginder Singh, whereas Sham Singh had a son Inder Singh. After the death of Bachan Singh, Waryam Singh and Inder Singh became co-owners in joint possession of the suit property. Joginder Singh son of Waryam Singh was married to Harbans Kaur, and from their wedlock the appellant–plaintiff Kako @

Karnail Kaur was born on 09.06.2006 (Vikrami).

2.1. It was further pleaded that Waryam Singh died in the year 1949, whereupon his estate devolved upon his son Joginder Singh. However, Joginder Singh died about a year thereafter, leaving behind his widow Harbans Kaur and the appellant–plaintiff as his daughter. Mutation of the estate of Waryam Singh in village Gopalon was sanctioned in favour of Joginder Singh, and upon the death of Joginder Singh, mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his widow Harbans Kaur.

2.3. Subsequently, Harbans Kaur contracted a Karewa marriage with Inder Singh, father of the defendants. It was alleged that by virtue of such remarriage, Harbans Kaur forfeited her interest in the estate of Joginder Singh which had devolved upon her. Taking undue advantage of his superior position and fiduciary relationship with Harbans Kaur, and also considering the tender age of the plaintiff, Inder Singh allegedly managed to have his name fraudulently entered in the revenue record as owner of the estate of Joginder Singh. The plaintiff asserted that upon the remarriage of Harbans Kaur with Inder Singh, she became the absolute owner of the interest of Joginder Singh in the suit property.

2.4. It was further alleged that with respect to the estate situated at Ramgarh, Inder Singh also fraudulently procured the sanctioning of mutation of inheritance of Waryam Singh directly in his own name by concealing the existence of Joginder Singh as the son of Waryam Singh and by suppressing the fact that Harbans Kaur and the plaintiff were respectively the widow and daughter of Joginder Singh. The plaintiff further pleaded that she was brought up under the care of Inder Singh and Harbans Kaur and was treated well. However, after the death of Inder Singh, when she visited the village to attend the marriage of defendant No.2, the defendants allegedly ill-treated her, whereupon she made inquiries and came to know that defendants No.1 and 2 had unlawfully usurped her share in the suit property. Consequently, the present suit was instituted.

3. Defendant No.2 contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the marriage of Harbans Kaur with Joginder Singh as well as the claim that the plaintiff was born from their wedlock. It was pleaded that Joginder Singh died about a year after the death of Waryam Singh. While admitting that mutation of inheritance of Waryam Singh had been sanctioned in favour of Joginder Singh,