OM PARKASH Vs. THANA RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/Plaintiff-Om Parkash, has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.8.2004 passed by the District Judge, Ambala, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ambala, dismissing his suit for declaration to the effect that he has become the owner in possession of the land, in dispute, measuring 6 kanals 3 marlas, situated in village Gadhauli, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, and for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants from dispossessing him from this land and also from transferring or alienating the same in any manner whatsoever.

(2.) The case pleaded by the Plaintiff in the plaint is that Thane Ram-Defendant No. 1 was the owner of the land in dispute and he is coming in possession thereof since Kharif 1982 and entries to that effect have already been incorporated in the khasra girdawari as 'gair maroosi nazayaz kasat'. He is coming in possession, as such, for the last 13 years without payment of any rent to any person, including Defendant No. 1. His possession has also been reflected in the jamabandies for the years 1986-87 and 1991-92. His possession was open, hostile and continuous against the entire world, including the Defendants, for the last 13 years and, as such, the same has matured into ownership. He made request to the Defendants to acknowledge his ownership but they refused, which necessitated the filing of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit of the Plaintiff was contested by the Defendants. In the written statement they denied the contentions of the Plaintiff and pleaded that Defendant No. 1 is the owner of the land in dispute which had been allotted to him in lieu of his land left in erstwhile Pakistan and the same is being managed by Defendant No. 2 on his behalf, who has been appointed as general attorney. It is Defendant No. 1, who is coming in possession of the land in dispute. The entries in the khasra girdwari and the jamabandi, in the column of possession, are illegal without any basis and have been made without their knowledge. The Plaintiff himself admitted Defendant No. 1 to be owner in possession of this land by entering into an agreement dated 6.3.1995. Vide that agreement, he agreed to purchase the land in dispute for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- and paid Rs. 15,000/- as earnest money. Though Defendant No. 1 had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, yet the Plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract, as he failed to pay the balance sale consideration and on account of failure to perform his part of the contract, the earnest money so paid by him stood forfeited. The Defendants made a counter claim in their written statement for the recovery of the possession of the land in dispute from the Plaintiff on the ground that he is in unauthorized possession thereof and that the un-authorized possession of the Plaintiff came to their knowledge when they visited the village.

(3.) In replication to the written statement, the Plaintiff denied the contentions raised therein and reiterated his averments made in the plaint. He denied that any such agreement was so executed by Defendant No. 1 in his favour.