LACHHMAN SINGH Vs. RACHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine would dispose of RSA Nos. 1753, 1754 and 1755 of 1980 as common questions of facts and law are involved in all the appeals. The counsel for the parties are agreed that the facts of the case may be picked up from Regular Second Appeal No. 1753 of 1980 which has been filed by defendant-appellants against Rachna plaintiffs respondent.

(2.) The facts of the case in short are that the plaintiff Rachna filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff on the land which is comprised in Khewat/Khatoni No. 68/153, Khasra No. 796 measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas situated in village Pathreri Jattan, Tehsil and District Ropar as per Jamabandi for the year 1975-76. The plaintiff has averred that he is owner in possession of the suit land as he has inherited the same from his father Rura and from his uncle Chanan Singh which in turn was inherited by them from their forefathers. It was the case of the plaintiff that the land in dispute has continued to remain in possession of the plaintiff through his ancestors for a very long time. The defendants have alleged to have issued notice under the Punjab Tenancy Act to the ancestors of the plaintiff to vacate the disputed land compelling their forefathers to file an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ropar in which the legality of the notice was challenged. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade passed a decree on 31.3.1928 holding that the ancestors of the plaintiff could not be evicted as they were occupancy tenants. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the land in disputed was cultivated by their forefathers as occupancy tenants and they became owners in the year 1953. After 1953, the land in dispute was cultivated by them as owners. The defendants all the times had been seeing the plaintiff in cultivating possession and now they were estopped from denying the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff. The defendants in defence averred that they were the owners in possession of the land. The relevant pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :-

(3.) The trial Court found issue No. 1 partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly against him. It was found under issue No. 1 that the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed land but as trespasser. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to protect his possession but as a trespasser. In appeal before the first Appellate Court the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been reversed and the plaintiff has been held to be the owner of the disputed land. This is how the defendants have come up in second appeal before this Court.