(1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate for respondents.
(2.) The following three issues have been raised by Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants:
(3.) Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that there was no evidence placed by plaintiffs-appellants before courts below to show that Chabutara was part and parcel of plot no. 109. The Trial Court in absence of any evidence, on conjectural basis, decided issue no. 1 which has rightly been discarded and reversed by Lower Appellate Court. With respect to plea of adverse possession, he submitted that, there was no pleading satisfying the legal requirements and, therefore, plaintiffs-appellants could not have been conferred any right on the basis of doctrine of adverse possession. So far as issue of res judicata is concerned, he submitted that the suit was filed only by Trust and other defendants were not parties therein. The suit was dismissed in default. Therefore, it shall not operate as res judicata against all the defendants who were not even party therein.