BHAJAN LAL Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed against the judgment and decree of civil court and arises out of suit No. 149 of 1966 which was filed by the deceased- Kalloo Ram for perpetual injunction against the respondents No. 3 & 4. Kalloo Ram is said to have died during the pendency of revision before respondent No. 1. Petitioners No. 1 to 6 are his heirs and legal representatives whereas, petitioners No. 7 and 8 art transferees from said Kallo Ram under a registered sale deed.

(2.) KALLOO Ram's case was that he was residing in the suit property. However, the roof of the room of the house had fallen down before the institution of the suit, therefore he shifted into another house. The house originally is said to have belonged to one Jia Lal, meternal uncle of the plaintiff. The defendants wanted to dispossess him forcibly from the house. His alternative plea was that even if he was treated as a tenant he could not be ejected forcibly. The respondents denied the title and possession of the plaintiff. Respondent No. 4 is said to have sold the said house to the respondent No. 3. A portion of the land was under the possession of the plaintiff as tenant over which he had built a room which fell down and the plaintiff had abandoned it and he was not in possession thereafter now. The respondent No. 4 has alleged that the plaintiff was his tenant being heir of Jia Lal but he had abandoned the land, therefore, he transferred the said land in favour of respondent No.3. The trial court decreed the suit holding KALLOO Ram as owner of the property which ownership according to the trial court was acquired by KALLOO Ram by long, uninterrupted and continuous possession over the suit property. The adverse possession of KALLOO Ram ever the suit property was held to have matured into ownership of the plaintiff KALLOO Ram. The appeal was filed against the judgment of the respondent No. 2 which was heard by respondent No. 1 The, appeal was dismissed with an observation that it would be open for the Contesting respondents to eject the plaintiff from the premises in the suit according to law. The appellate court held that the plaintiff was a tenant in . possession of the disputed premises, therefore, it could not be ejected from the suit property otherwise, than in accordance with law.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel and considered the record also. The plaintiff Kalloo Ram had asserted his right as owner. He bases his ownership rights on adverse possession though the expression adverse possession is not used in the plaint but from reading the plaint it appears that Kalloo Ram wanted to assert ownership by prescription. His possessary rights had matured into ownership because he was not ejected from the suit premises within the period of limitation, therefore, rights of true owner in the suit land had extinguished. He has led some evidence that he is in possession of the suit property and the trial court accepted this version but the appellate court on reassessment of the evidence has held that Kalloo Ram's adverse possession over the suit property was not proved. The plaintiff has also alternatively stated that even as tenant he cannot be ejected from the suit premises otherwise, than in accordance with law. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that plaintiff's own case vas that he was a tenant of the suit property in the alternative, therefore, he cannot now turn around and say that he is not a tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaint though loosely drafted could not deprieve the petitioner of his right of ownership over the land because the document relied upon by the respondents is inadmissible in evidence, therefore, plaintiff could not be held to be tenant of the suit property. It is submitted that after the trial of the suit courts below have to decide the question of plaintiff's rights over the suit property on the basis of evidence and not depend on the isolated pleas of the plaint which cannot be held to be an admission by the plaintiff that he was a tenant of the suit land.