GURMIT SINGH Vs. SHINDA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of reversal dated 20.2.2009 whereby the lower Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2006 passed by the trial Court vide which suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) Plaintiff had instituted a suit for possession of land measuring about 5 marlas (24'-9" x 40'), detail and description of which has been given in the head note of the plaint. It was pleaded in the suit that father of the plaintiff, namely, Jagat Singh had filed a Suit No. 280 dated 5.1.1984 against Atma Singh son of Inder Singh, Jaila son of Karma, Sadhu son of Shami, Gian, Geeto @ Gulwant daughters of Bhagat Singh and Buta Ram, the then Sarpanch son of Dalip Chand of Village Razapur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in possession of his house boundaries of which were described in para 1 of the plaint. It was averred that total area in possession of father of the plaintiff was measuring about 11 marlas. The defendants to that suit contested the same. In that suit, father of the plaintiff had averred that house in dispute was in his ownership and was more than 30 years old. The house consisted of three rooms, one kitchen, cattle shed and open courtyard. Furthermore, as per the averments made in the suit, father of the plaintiff had planted 40/45 trees and defendants to that suit had no link with the property. Defendants to that suit, in the reply filed, raised a plea that they were owners in possession of the suit property because the same was given to them by the Gram Panchayat of the village. They had questioned the ownership and possession of the father of the plaintiff. A specific issue was framed as to whether the father of the plaintiff was owner in possession of the demised shop. On 24.8.1985, suit filed by father of the plaintiff was decreed as he was able to prove that he was in possession of the suit property. Accordingly, a decree for possession was passed in favour of father of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

(3.) It was further pleaded that father of the plaintiff died in the year 1995. At that time, the plaintiff was in Government service. He is the only surviving son of his father. His one brother, namely, Ajit Singh had predeceased him. His father had been living in the house which he had constructed. Since, the parents of the plaintiff were very old, defendant to this suit took forcible possession of the house of the father of the plaintiff of area measuring about 5 marlas (24'-9" x 40') some where in the year 1995. It was further averred that they had forcibly constructed a room in the portion of the property. Thus, cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff in the year 1995. Hence, suit in question for possession of the land measuring 5 marlas was filed.