MADAN LAL Vs. CHETAN MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 13.10.2005 and 21.7.2006 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Ropar (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants were dismissed. A suit for possession was filed by the appellants by pleading that the suit property was owned by them after the death of their father-Ram Asra; that during his life time, Ram Asra had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against Amar Nath, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, which was dismissed on 30.9.1980; that Civil Appeal No.115 of 1980/1981 filed by Ram Asra was partly accepted on 19.1.1981; that no further appeal was filed and those findings were binding on the parties; that the respondents have violated the terms of the said decree and have constructed fresh pucca wall instead of kucha wall which existed; that in execution of the above said decree, the respondents were proceeded against under Order 21 Rule 32 of the C.P.C. and pursuant to those proceedings, they forfeited their right of tenancy as they had pleaded adverse possession; and that this assertion of theirs in the execution proceedings prompted the appellants to file the instant suit for possession. In response to the notice issued by the trial Court, the respondents filed their written statement pleading that the suit was time barred and that it was not maintainable. On merits, they claimed that they had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession after expiry of twelve years on 19.11.1983 and that the appellants were not the owners any more. The parties went to trial on the following issues:-

(2.) The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court dismissed the suit and the appeal of the appellants.

(3.) In so far as the issue of ownership is concerned, both the Courts below concluded that the ownership of the appellants qua the suit property was not in dispute. However, the prayer of the appellants for possession was not answered in their favour on the ground that since in the earlier proceedings, the status of the respondents as tenants had conclusively been held, therefore, in the absence of any notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 (for short, `the Act'), the suit for possession was defective.