PALTOO RAM Vs. UMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has impugned the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2008 which has endorsed the findings of the trial Judge dated 07.01.2005 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff Smt. Uma Devi seeking recovery of possession and mesne profits qua the suit property i.e. agricultural land situated at Khasra No. 586-589, Village Chanderwali (now known as Illaqa Kanti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi) had been decreed in her favour.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that she along with her son Vinay Pal had inherited the aforenoted suit property from her deceased husband Om Prakash who was the owner of the suit property. THE defendants had illegally and unauthorisedly encroached upon 550 square yards of the land seven years ago without the consent and permission of the plaintiff; unauthorized construction had also been raised therein. Inspite of legal notice dated 16.04.1990, the defendants had failed to vacate the suit property. Suit was accordingly filed.

(3.) ORAL and documentary evidence was led which included the testimony of PW-1 Krishan Bal Sharma who was the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff Uma Devi. PW-1 had entered into the witness box and deposed on behalf of his aunt; power of attorney Ex. PW-1/1 executed in his favour by Uma Devi was of the year 1982-83. The deposition of PW-1 was made in December, 1997. This testimony of PW-1 was coupled with the documentary evidence which was the khasra girdawari and jamabandi of the aforenoted property evidencing the factum of possession of this land in favour of the plaintiff with the additional documents i.e. certified copy of a judgment dated 22.11.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 656/1994 titled as Uma Devi Vs. Om Prakash wherein the court had held that Uma Devi had inherited the property i.e. khasra No. 586-589 in Village Chanderwali now known as Illaqa Kanti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi from her deceased husband. This judgment had been re-affirmed by the High Court and also by the Apex Court. The Court had also noted that the Halka Patwari had come into the witness box as DW-5; he had deposed that this land was mutated in the name of the plaintiff vide mutation No.7717; certified copy of which was proved as Ex. DW-5/1. This oral and documentary evidence had been taken into account to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff that she was the owner of the suit property. Even otherwise, there was no specific defence that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. The defence in the written statement was that the defendants have become owners by adverse possession; additional plea was that they had purchased their respective shares from the widow of Vinay Pal (son of Uma Devi). No issue had also been framed in the court below on the question of ownership as this was never a disputed or contentious issue between the parties.