BABU RAM Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff filed suit for possession alleging that the defendants had forcibly occupied the suit property which was a part of a house. It was stated that defendant No. 1 was son of the plaintiff who was given in adoption. The defendants contested the suit. During the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff Purna Devi died and Babu Ram son of Purna Devi was substituted in her place on the basis of a Will. The trial Court held that Purna Devi was the owner of the suit property; the defendants had become owner by adverse possession. It was stated that the case of the plaintiff herself was that the defendants had forcibly taken possession and in view of evidence led by the defendants that they had been continuously in possession for more than 12 years prior to the filing of the suit i.e. 30.5.1973. The appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the courts below on the issue of adverse possession was erroneous and since the defendants had not given any particular date of their having taken possession, the plea of adverse possession should have been accepted. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the possession of the defendants was adverse from the beginning, as pleased by the plaintiff in the plaint itself and the possession being for a period of more than 12 years prior to filing of the suit, there was no error in the findings recorded by the courts below.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties, I neither find any substantial question of law nor do I find that the finding of the courts below that the defendants were in adverse possession and had perfected their title by prescription, to be perverse. There is, therefore, no scope for interference in second appeal.