PRATAP BHAN Vs. KRISHNA DEVI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Shashi Kant Gupta Advocate for the caveator-respondents.

(2.) THIS is defendant's second appeal. The plaintiff-respondents instituted Original Suit No. 1278 of 1980 claiming the relief for possession and removal of construction raised by the defendants from the part of the plot No. 5/166, Purana Kanpur alongwith relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant. The plaintiffs claimed to be the owner of the entire property which was purchased by her father-in-law late Sri Baji Lal through a registered sale deed in the year 1902. The husband of the plaintiff instituted S. C. C. Suit No. 460 of 1963 against the defendant for arrears of rent and eviction which was dismissed but later, on intervention of certain respectable persons, the defendant vacated the disputed property in the year 1965. The plaintiffs husband Krishna Dutt Pandey died on 2-11-1968. The defendant resides in premises No. 5/166 Purana Kanpur which is close to the disputed property, taking undue advantage of widowhood of the plaintiff and forcibly took possession of the disputed premises in the year 1980. Since the plaintiff was threatened by the defendant, a First Information Report was registered at police station Nawabganj on 20-8-1980. On 30-8-1980 the defendant started making construction, consequently a notice to remove the bricks etc. was given. On receipt of the said notice, the defendant started to make construction quickly, this led to institution of the suit. The defendant filed written statement denying the title of the plaintiff and stated that there was no need of permission before raising the construction. He claimed his title on the basis of adverse possession stating therein that he was in possession much before 1960 and after dismissal of the S. C. C. Suit, the defendant enjoyed and uninterrupted possession and he has perfected his right over the suit property.

(3.) COUNSEL for the plaintiff-respondents has emphatically disputed argument of the learned COUNSEL for the appellant claiming title on the basis of adverse possession. The fact that the defendants it initially disputed the title of the husband of the plaintiff and subsequently changed his stand that after dismissal of the S. C. C. Suit, the plaintiff had not tried to interfere in his possession, therefore, the defendants' possession was liable to be held continues and his title on the basis of adverse possession cannot be accepted.