GIRI RAJ Vs. DEEPAK GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three regular appeals arising out of three intertwined suits which were instituted way back in the month of April, 1970 and in which there is a concurrent finding against the appellants.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants with regard to formulation of the so -called substantial questions of law, it may be pertinent to mention that the respondents who were the plaintiffs in the trial court had filed a suit for recovery and possession along with mesne profits in respect of an open vacant land measuring in the range of 60 -75 square yards approximately in all the three cases of appellants alleging them to be the tenants in respect of these three respective parcels of land. The land was situated in the locality of Patti Jahanunuma, Delhi.

(3.) THE appellants/defendants filed their separate written statement and admitted that the respondents were co -owners of the open parcel of land yet they denied not only the tile of the respondents, but also the locus to institute the suit for possession on the basis of their title. The appellants pleaded estoppel against the respondents and denied their title. In the alternative, they denied that the respondents were entitled to any damages/mesne profits and also claimed to have become the owner in respective parcels of land on the basis of adverse possession and, therefore, took the plea that the suits were barred under Article 66 of the Limitation Act, 1963.