NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. SHASHI PATNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. M. No. 12815-C of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : Defendant Naveen Kumar, who was successful in the trial court, but has been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, is in second appeal. Suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff Shashi Patni alleging that his father Shiv Charan Patni had purchased 03 acres 04 kanals land vide sale certificate dated 12.07.1956 and was delivered possession thereof. After the death of his father, the plaintiff and his brother Surinder, as his legal heirs, inherited the aforesaid property. However, defendant has illegally taken possession of suit property, which is part of khasra no.3621, out of property purchased by plaintiff's father. The plaintiff, therefore, sought possession of the suit property.

(2.) THE defendant inter alia pleaded that Punjab Wakf Board is owner of the suit property and Wakf Board has allotted the same to the defendant vide allotment letter dated 26.06.1990 and since then, defendant is in continuous possession thereof. THE defendant also claimed to have become owner by adverse possession. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff proved alleged sale certificate dated 12.07.1956 in secondary evidence by way of additional evidence in first appeal, but in fact, there is no record of the said sale certificate in the office of Tehsildar (Sales). The contention does not help the appellant. In fact, it was also the case of the plaintiff-respondent that record of plot no.16 comprising of 03 acres 04 kanals land including the suit land, which was sold by custodian to plaintiff's father vide sale certificate dated 12.07.1956, was not available in the office of Tehsildar (Sales) and precisely for this reason, permission was granted to the plaintiff-respondent by the lower appellate court to prove the said sale certificate by secondary evidence and accordingly, the plaintiff proved the same. It is proved from the sale certificate that plaintiff and his brother are owners of the suit land having inherited it from their father, who had purchased the same along with other land. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit has been rightly decreed by the lower appellate court.