pleaded that in the year 1992 the defendants became aware that Harbans Kaur had died and they started to threaten the plaintiffs-appellants to get the possession of the suit land and thereafter the possession was in fact got forcibly by them. The plaintiffs-appellants pleaded that numerous requests were made to the defendants to restore the possession and it was in September, 1994 that the defendants declared that the suit land is in their name and they would not restore the possession thereof. Plaintiffsappellants, thereupon applied for a copy of the mutation on 10.10.1994 and the same was supplied on 12.10.1994 and under such circumstances the suit had been filed. The defendants contested the suit by pleading that the plaintiffs-appellants had previously filed a suit against defendants no.1 to 3, 16, 10 and 21 but the same was dismissed on 27.1.1994 by the then Sub Judge, Jalandhar. It was admitted that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by Basant Singh @ Sant Singh, who had expired in the year 1963. The factum of Basant Singh having died issueless was also admitted. However, a case of denial was set up regarding Harbans Kaur, mother of the plaintiffs-appellants having been adopted by Basant Singh and the adoption deed in the shape of a Will alleged to be executed on 12.8.1958 was also denied. It was stated that Harbans Kaur had got entered a mutation no.788 on the basis of a document dated 24.1.1962 which was claimed to be a gift deed in her favour from Basant Singh but such mutation was rejected by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 22.12.1965. The gift deed allegedly propounded by Harbans Kaur was rejected by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Even the appeal against such order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade was rejected by the Collector, Jalandhar on 9.8.1966. Harbans Kaur then preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division
