HUKUM SINGH Vs. KESHWANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Janam Singh, J. Hukum Singh has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-1992 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that plaintiff- appellant filed a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act before the trial Court with the allega tions that he has matured his rights as Bhumindhar on the basis of adverse pos session over the land in question and that the land in question was recorded in the name of Lakhi Ram and others as Maurusidar. The plaintiff-appellant has claimed that in the family settlement the land in question was given to him and since then he is in possession over the land in question. After the settlement the land was recorded in the name of Raghunath Singh son of Laskhi Ram, Shailendra Singh and Raghubir Singh son of Badri Singh who in due course executed a sale-deed in favour of Keshwanand and on the basis of that sale-deed Keshwanand was mutuated upon in place of Raghunath Singh and others. Prior to this Kesh wanand instituted a suit under Section 209 of the U. P. ZA and LR Act before the learned trial Court for ejectment which was dismissed by the trial Court. Kesh wanand went in appeal which was remanded back to the trial Court with a direction that the suit between Hukum Singh versus Keshwanand which is pending before the trial Court and the suit No. 15 of 1984-85 under Section 209 of the ZA Act should be clubbed together and decided as if Hukum Singh is found to be in posses sion over the land in suit and has perfected his rights on the basis of adverse posses sion then the relief should be given to Hukum Singh and if otherwise the relief should be granted to Keshwanand. The learned trial Court after clubbing the two cases arrived at a conclusion that the plain tiff-appellant has not acquired rights. The conclusion of the proceedings under Sec tion 145, Cr PC will not give any relief to the plaintiff-appellant to prove his adverse possession over the land in question. I agree with the findings given by the learned Additional Commissioner in his judgment dated 15-12-1992 which need no interference at this level.