DAYA RAM Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -O.S. No. 512 of 1971 for restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the land indicated by letters 'Aa, Ba, Sa, Da' in the plaint and passage through door shown by letters 'D2', was decreed by the trial court on 20.1.1974. A Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1974, filed by defendant was allowed by Civil Judge, Jalaun at Orai on 29.7.1975. On 6.2.1976, when the second appeal was admitted, the C.P.C. Amendment of 1976 was not notified and thus it was not necessary to frame substantial question of law for admitting the appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed suit with the allegations that land in dispute falls in plot No. 404 corresponding to new plot 430. Shri Arjun Singh, the landlord had orally given the plot to his father for constructing a house, which was built on a portion of the land. THE rest of the land was used for other purposes. THE plaintiff is in continuous occupation of the land, after the death of his father. He keeps his 'ghoora', bricks and cow-dung and also tethers his cattle on the land. THE suit was filed on 15.10.1971.THE plaintiff alleged that defendants opened the door towards east of their house on the land on 18.10.1971. Shri R. K. Raijada, Commissioner visited the spot and found that a door was in existence.

(3.) ON the assessment of evidence, the trial court found that the land falls in plot 404 which according to Ext. 11, is now numbered as plot 430. Shri Arjun Singh P.W. 2 stated that the area of plot 404 is 0.19 decimal and that he had given the entire plot 404 to the plaintiff. Further relying upon the Commissioner's report, the trial court found that 'agga' is always in front of the main road. A person does not keep his 'ghoora' (garbage) on his agga. Arjun Singh had given the land to the father of the plaintiff about 42 years ago. The door 'D2' was a new opening. Ext. A-3 is a compromise in a panchayat in favour of defendant. This document was not admitted by the plaintiff and was not proved by the defendant. The trial court found that the plaintiff is engaged in agriculture on 'batai' (sharing) and that he must be having some place to keep for 'kanda' and 'ghoora'. ON these findings, the trial court held that the disputed land is the extension of the house of the plaintiff and that the defendants were not in adverse possession over the same and decreed the suit on 20.1.1974.