RAMAUTAR Vs. MALHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 18.3.2006 of the Additional District Judge, Narnaul (hereinafter described as 'the first appellate Court') vide which the appeal of the defendant-Malhu Ram (since deceased and now represented by his legal representatives) was accepted and the judgment & decree dated 20.7.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mahendergarh (referred to hereinafter as 'the trial Court') were set aside. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration as well as for permanent injunction pleading that he was owner in possession of the land in question as a co-sharer, but the defendant had got the revenue entries changed and got shown himself to be in possession and that these entries were illegal, null & void and not binding on his rights. It was further pleaded that the defendant had been interfering in the possession of the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid wrong entries and thus, it was prayed that he be restrained from interfering and also from cutting the trees standing in the suit land.

(2.) The defendant had appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was pleaded that earlier a similar suit with the same prayer had been filed by the appellant which was decided against him on 8.12.1999 by the first appellate Court. He had claimed that he was owner in possession of the land in question by way of adverse possession as he was occupying the suit land since 1955. It was pleaded that the instant suit was simple suit for declaration without the relief of possession of the suit land and, therefore, the same was not maintainable. The parties went to trial on the following issues:-

(3.) After appraisal of the evidence on record, the trial Court partly decreed the suit of the appellant, whereas in appeal, its findings were reversed by the first appellate Court, giving rise to the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the findings recorded by the first appellate Court are erroneous and deserve to be set aside. He pleaded that since the appellant had assailed the revenue entries, the suit was maintainable.