LAWS(CHH)-2020-2-51

PYARE LAL Vs. RAM GOPAL

Decided On February 12, 2020
PYARE LAL Appellant
V/S
RAM GOPAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial question of law: -

(2.) The suit property was originally held by one Suddhuram Yadav - father of the plaintiffs who is said to have purchased the suit property vide registered sale deeds dated 21-7-1953 (Ex.P-1) and 25-6-1957 (Ex.P-2). It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs' father - Suddhuram Yadav had a widowed sister namely Subha Bai and on account of her poor financial condition, the plaintiffs gave a part of the suit property with one room for stay to their father's sister and her son Ramgopal - original defendant, but when the plaintiffs asked the original defendant to vacate the suit premises due to addition in their family, the original defendant refused and started assaulting the plaintiffs and started illegally occupying over the other part of the suit property which compelled the plaintiffs to send legal notice dated 9- 7-1996 to the defendant and to file suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and damages in which original defendant Ramgopal setup a plea that an unregistered sale deed dated 20-3- 1968 has been executed by Suddhuram Yadav in his favour for a sale consideration of Rs. 200/-, as such, the plaintiffs' suit deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) The trial Court after evaluating oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the suit holding that the defendant has perfected his title by way of adverse possession, as the defendant is in possession of the suit land and in possession of the unregistered sale deed since 20-3-1968. The first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs also suffered the same fate, but partly modified and it was held that the plea of the defendant is permissive and the unregistered sale deed dated 20-3-1968 is a thirty years old document, therefore, by virtue of Section 90 of the Evidence Act, presumption would be available to the defendant that it is executed validly.