DHARAMPAL Vs. DHANNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement dated 9.2.1975 executed by defendant No.2 in his favour and in the alternative, he had become owner by way of adverse possession since 9.2.1975 being in possession of the house and further suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property, was dismissed.

(2.) As per the averments made in the suit, the appellant averred that previously defendant No.2 Nanhti (later on defendant No.2 was given up) was owner in possession of the suit property. She executed an agreement to sell on 9.2.1975 in his favour for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and promised to get the sale deed executed in his favour. Thereafter, the plaintiff constructed three rooms, a cattle shed and boundary wall and started residing therein. He also got installed an electric meter in his name and was paying electricity bills since 1979-80. It was further averred that the suit property was in his possession which was to the knowledge of the defendants since 1975 and further that the said possession was open, peaceful and without any interruption. It was further averred that the defendants tried to interfere in his possession on 28.4.1995 and tried to dispossess him forcibly but their act was resisted with the intervention of the respectables of the village. He requested the defendants to admit his claim. However, the defendants refused to accede to his request, which necessitated him to file the instant suit.

(3.) Upon notice, defendant No.1 Parbhati (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) filed written statement as well as counter claim. Several preliminary objections were raised. It was averred that the plaintiff had forged and fabricated the alleged agreement dated 9.2.1975. It was further pleaded that the construction was raised by him and the possession of the house was handed over to the plaintiff in the year 1990 for taking care of the same and hence, there was no question of any adverse possession. In counter claim, defendant No.1 submitted that two rooms were constructed by him over the suit property. He was working at Ganganagar and since he was having faith in the plaintiff, he handed over the possession of two rooms to the plaintiff in the year 1990 for taking care of the same, being a near relative. He had requested the plaintiff to vacate the house many a times but the plaintiff denied to vacate it. It was claimed that being owner of the house, defendant No.1 was entitled to get possession and thus, it was prayed that a decree for possession in his favour be passed.