SANTA SINGH Vs. UJAGAR SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.1.1985, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming themselves to be owners of the land bearing khasra No. 1//32 (0-5) in pursuance to the resolution proceeding book of Consolidation Department situated in village Majrian after removal of malba, has been decreed.

(2.) The case set up by the plaintiff/respondents was, that the plaintiffs along with defendants No. 2 to 6 were the owners of the suit land, situated in village Majrian, in which the plaintiffs had 3/4th share and defendants No. 2 to 6 had 1/4th share. The case set up by the plaintiffs was, that besides the land in dispute, the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 6 had some other joint land, which was mutually partitioned, and the suit land fell to the share of the plaintiffs about five months back and they were in its possession exclusively. The case of the plaintiffs further was, that on Sunday prior to the date on which the suit was instituted, the plaintiffs had to go out of village, for joining a marriage of their cousin and taking advantage of their absence, appellant/defendant No. 1 raised construction over the land in dispute by employing a number of masons and labourers. Prior to this, the defendants were cultivating the land in dispute as tenants of the plaintiffs. On the basis of the averments made, they claimed to be owners of the suit land. It was the case of the plaintiff/respondents, that possession of defendant No. 1, Santa Singh over the suit land was without any right or authority being a trespasser, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to possession. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs, that defendant/appellant was asked on number of occasions to remove the construction and hand over the possession of the plot to the plaintiffs to no avail.

(3.) The suit was contested by all the defendants by filing joint written statement, wherein the averments made on merit were denied. The stand taken in the written statement was, that the defendant No. 1/appellant was in possession of the suit land for the last 20 years, where he constructed his own house. The defendant No. 1/appellant claimed his possession to be open, notorious and hostile, therefore, he claimed ownership by way of adverse possession. It was admitted by the defendants, that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit land in the revenue record. It was also asserted, that during the consolidation, area was reserved and defendant No. 1 was shown as marusi, as his house existed in the site in suit, on this account also it was claimed that defendants had become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Other objections qua the maintainability of the suit were also raised.