AVTAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. BHAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellants for the recovery of Rs. 4,000.00 which was stated to be damages for the loss caused on account of destruction of grain crop sown by the plaintiff in the land measuring 39 Kanals 17 Marlas bearing Khewat No. 246, Khatauni No. 289, Rect. No. 20 Killa No. 22 Min (1-7), 23/2min (3-7) Rect. No. 23 Killa No. 1/2(4-0), 2(8-0)3 min (7-12), 7/1 min (4-18), 8/1 (1-7), 9/1 (3-11), situate in the area of village Itan Baddi, Tehsil and District Jullundur. It has been stated by the plaintiff that the defendants on account of their unlawful act of trespass committed on 19-1-1977 have caused loss to the grain crop. The defendants averred that they were in possession of the above mentioned land. The suit property was stated to be allotted to Puran Singh on 17-2-1975 through the predecessor-in-interests of the defendants. Its physical possession, according to the defendants was delivered at the spot on 27-2-1975 and this is how defendant No. 1 was in cultivating possession of the disputed land. It was further stated by defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff-threatened to take forcible possession of the disputed land and, therefore, defendant No. 1 had to file a civil suit No. 30 of 1975 for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed on 24-9-1976 and this is how he had soon crops in the year 1976.

(2.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(3.) Shri Atma Singh Cheema, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that issue No. 2 having been decided in favour of the defendant appellants it should be held that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of the disputed land. It has further been argued that the evidence on the record of the case does not prove that the plaintiff-respondent was in possession and that the defendant appellants never destroyed the crops sown by the plaintiff-respondent. It is further argued that the plaintiff-respondent was not in cultivating possession of the disputed land and that the had not sown crops in Oct., 1976.