MOOL CHAND Vs. NEELAM DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri S. Alim Shab, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri D. C. Mathur, learned Counsel for the respon-dents.

(2.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated fo 5. 4. 2008 passed by the Special Judge/additional District Judge, Bijnor, in civil appeal No. 90 of 2007, confirming the judgment and decree dated 20. 9. 2007 passed by the Judge Smali Causes Court, Bijnor, in original suit No. 238 of 2001. '

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the plaintiff/appellant had already perfected his right before the present defendant/respondents pur chased the property and, therefore, he became the owner of 1/4 share as he continued to be in occupation within the knowledge of owners and his possession is a hostile possession within the knowledge of real owners and thus the plaintiff perfected his title and he is owner in possession and is entitled for permanent injunction.