SUKHDEO PARASHRAMJI BHUGUL Vs. WAMANRAO NAGORAO CHARHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7-10-1991 passed by the Additional District Judge in regular Civil Appeal No. 575 of 1986, whereby the appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 30-10-1986 passed by the trial Court was set aside and instead the appellant/defendant was directed to deliver possession of the suit land, i. e. 7 Ares shown in red colour in the map (Ex. 31), which was said to be encroachment, with further direction regarding enquiry into future mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 (l) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) BRIEF facts are required to be stated as under : the respondent / plaintiff filed the suit for possession on the basis of the title of the land under encroachment on the contentions that he is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 55 / 1a admeasuring 1 hectare 1 Are situated at village Jawara, whereas the defendant is the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 55/1, admeasuring 1 acre 4 gunthas and his land is situated on the Western side of plaintiffs land. It is contended that the plaintiff got his land measured through cadestal surveyor from the office of the District Inspector of Land Records on 28-3-1985 and it was found that there was encroachment on the land to the extent of 7 Ares and therefore the defendant was served with the notice, dated 13-7-1985 calling upon to him to deliver the possession of the land under encroachment. The defendant had given false reply to the said notice on 26-7-1985 and denied of having committed any encroachment.

(3.) THE defendant strongly resisted the suit claim by filing written statement and contended that he is in possession of the land Survey No. 55 / 1 since the time of his forefathers for more than 50 years without any interruption and, therefore, he has acquired title to the said land by virtue of adverse possession. He contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by period of limitation under Article 65 (5) of the Limitation Act. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as six issues. The witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties including the cadestal surveyor Laxman (P. W. 3) from the D. I. L. R. office. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence adduced recorded the finding that the defendant has made encroachment on the land of the plaintiff to the extent of 7 Ares and negatived the contention of the defendant that he has become the owner of the suit land by adverse possession. Consistent with these findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 31-10-1986. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the plaintiff carried appeal to the District Court. The learned additional District Judge by his judgment dated 7-10-1991 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and directed the defendant to deliver possession of the suit land shown in red colour in the map to the plaintiff With further direction to hold enquiry into future mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 (l) (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This judgment of the appellate Court is under challenge in this appeal.