PURAN SINGH Vs. MANJU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants along with Mangat Rai, Mst Lachho and Mst Mukhtiaro filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents on the ground that they are in possession of the land in dispute and have constructed their Aavies and their continuous possession had ripened into ownership. They also alleged that defendants have no right to interference in their possession.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendants denying that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land in dispute. They also denied that the plaintiffs have acquired any prescriptive right by lapse of time. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court holping that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have become owners by adverse possession or by right of prescription. Trial Court further found that the plaintiff are not in possession of the suit land and thus are not entitled to any injunction. Being aggrieveo of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiffs filed appeal before the District Judge, Sangrur. Some of the plaintiffs namely, Mangat Rai, Mst Laccho and mst Mukhtiaro abandoned the appeal. The first appellate Court, after taking into consideration the entire oral and documents evidence on the record, returned a finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove, that they are owners in possession of the property in dispute. Consequently the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed.

(3.) This is the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants are in possession of the property in dispute and reference was made to plan, Ex. PI which was Aavies are shown to be in existence. He further relied upon the statement of PW Jang Singh Patwari who has stated that there is a kiln 10 x 10 Karams and the pit of the old kiln is also nearby which measures 5 x 5 Karams His of kiln, then a finding should be returned in favour of the appellants that they are in possession of the property in dispute. He has fairly conceded that there is no evidence to prove that the appellants are owners of property in dispute.