JAGDISH DUBEY Vs. SHYAMLAL TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant No. 1, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:--

(2.) The defendant No. 1 filed the written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that Lampe and Param were his maternal uncle. Param sold the suit land to defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 1-6-1981 for a consideration of Rs. 9000/- and placed him in possession. It was further pleaded that plaintiff is neither in possession nor he has acquired title by adverse possession.

(3.) The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29-7-2000 inter alia held that from perusal of the revenue records namely Ex. P/1, P/11 and P/13, it is evident that in column No. 3, the name of Lampe and defendant No. 1, respectively, have been recorded as owner in respect of the suit land. It was further held that though the plaintiff claims to have been placed in possession pursuant to the partition, however, no documents with regard to the partition has been filed. It was also held that none of the plaintiffs witnesses have stated that the possession of the plaintiff was adverse to the interest of the owners of the suit land namely Lampe and Param. Thus, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 16-4-2001 while placing reliance on documents Ex. P/12, P/13, P/14, P/16 and P/24 inter alia held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land since 1978-79 and has acquired title by adverse possession. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the claim of the plaintiff was decreed.