DASHRATH Vs. MAQSOOD ALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendants' second appeal arising out of concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the disputed land as well as from damaging the constructions and trees standing thereon. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants appellants were alleged to have trespassed over a portion of the disputed land whereupon the plaintiffs got the plaint amended by adding the relief for possession.

(2.) SHORTLY stated, the plaint case was that the disputed land over which stood a house was owned by one Sheo Daras, who sold the same to Usman Ali, the grandfather of the plaintiffs. Usman Ali entered into possession over the property sold to him and started using the same as well as the land appurtenant to the house for tethering animals etc. After the death of Usman Ali, the plaintiffs' father Mohd. Alam and after his death plaintiffs have been continuing in possession as owners of the properties. In the year 1956, the house collapsed in floods and since then, the plaintiffs have been using the land underneath the collapsed house and the land appurtenant thereto which are marked by letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ya and Va in the sketch map attached to the plaint for tethering their animals. They have also constructed their Mandavi, Nand and Charani. The defendants are, however, without any right, title or interest over the disputed land threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs therefrom. Indeed during the pendency of the suit, they have also forcibly occupied a part of the land in suit. Hence the suit.

(3.) THESE findings have been affirmed in the appeal. The lower appellate court has after a very careful and exhaustive consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on the record recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiffs have proved both their title and possession over the disputed land. The other finding recorded by the appellate court is that the defendants' plea that they have been continuing in possession over the disputed land for over 40 years is demonstrably false and is negatived by their own evidence. They have on the contrary illegally trespassed over a part of the disputed land during the pendency of the suit and hence they are liable to be dispossessed therefrom. The claim of the appellants that they have prescribed their title by adverse possession has also been rejected by the appellate court on the finding that their possession was of recent origin, that is, after the institution of the suit.