SURJIT KAUR Vs. RAJA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, Whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed.

(2.) Raja Lal and twenty-four others filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land comprised in Khasra No. 81, measuring 37 kanal 3 Marlas situated in village kathunangal, Tehsil and District Amritsar was in their possession as owners. He had built their house and other structures on this land. As a consequential relief a permanent injunction was also sought against the defendants restraining them from interfering in the rights of ownership and possession of the plaintiffs in any manner. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that they originally belonged to Uttar Pradesh; that they cleared the jungle and built up the honses and structures etc. On the land in dispute more than 100 years back and earlier their ancestors were occupying the land and buildings as owners. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that they ever paid any rent or Batai to any person and had been in possession was open, continuous and hostile from the very beginning and thus, they have become the owners by adverse possession. The defendants Nos. 4 to 8 started harassing the plaintiffs and asked them to deliver possession of the property to them and this necessitated the filling of the present suit by them. It was also alleged that in view of provisions of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Land and Regulations Act, 1961 (for short the Act) they have become owners of the land under their houses being non-proprietors.

(3.) The defendants other than defendant No. 7 contested the suit and raised various objections to the maintainability of the suit. On merits,it had been pleaded that though the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land for the last about 10 years yet they had not become the owners by way of adverse possession. It was rather alleged by the contesting defendants that defendant Nos 4 and 5 purchased the land in dispute from defendant Nos. 1 to 3, who were the owners thereof and a mutation in respect of the sale had been entered. The allegations that the defendants had threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs were denied and it was denied and it was asserted that they never tried to get possession by force.