PUNNA RAM Vs. BALKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dated 24.11.1997 whereby he allowed the plaintiff to amend his plaint and incorporate the following para in the amended plaint:

(2.) Balkar Singh son of Inder Singh son of Santa Singh of village Jalmana Tehsif As -sandh, District Karnal filed suit for possession against Mamu and others defendants No. 1 to 5 on the allegations that he is the son of Inder Singh son of Santa Singh. Lal Singh, Avtar Singh, Swaran Singh, Sahib Singh defendants No.6 to 9 are the sons of Inder Singh son of Santa Singh. Smt. Jeet Kaur defendant No. 10 and Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur defendant No. 11 are the daughters of Inder Singh. Harbans Kaur, Bhupinder Singh, Lakhwinder Kaur defendants No. 12 to 14 are the widow, son and daughter of Inder Singh's predeceased son Iqbal Singh. Inder Singh purchased a built up house along -with open space (area measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas Field No.1 12/129) vide sale deed dated 11.7.1962 from one Kehar Singh son of Nidhan Singh son of Sher Singh resident of Jalamana Tehsil Assandh District Panipat for a consideration of Rs.1500/ -. Said Inder Singh was a bona fide purchaser of the said built up house and open space. Said Inder Singh was owner in possession of the said house. Defendants No.1 to 5 i.e. Mamu and others are Harijans. Harijan locality is quite adjacent to the said disputed house and open space. There arose a minor dispute regarding the exact boundaries of the said house and open space between the deceased Inder Singh and Mamu and odiers defendants No. 1 to 5. A panchayat of the village respectables and elders was convened. Original sale deed respecting the said house/open space was handed over to Mamu etc. defendants No. 1 to 5 at their request so that the dispute regarding the exact boundaries of the said house/open space covered by the said sale deed could be resolved, it was alleged in the plaint that Mamu and others defendants No. 1 to 5 did not have any concern right, title or interest so far as that house and open space was concerned. After some time, the eldest son of Inder Singh named Iqbal Singh expired. His death sent Inder Singh and other members of the family into a great mental shock. Inder Singh could not manage to take back the said original sale deed from Mamu and others defendants No.1 to 5. After a few months, Inder Singh also died as he could not bear the mental shock and agony suffered by him on account of the death of his eldest son iqbal Singh. After the death of Inder Singh, the plaintiff and defendants No.7 to 14 left village Jalmana and started residing in Bijnor (Uttar Pradesh) with their maternal uncle. Defendant No.6 Lal Singh preferred to reside in village Jalmana. All the agricultural property of the share of the plaintiff and defendants No.7 to 14 was sold away at throw away prices. Possession of the said house/open space was never handed over to Mamu and others by said Inder Singh or after his death by his sons. It is alleged in the plaint that Mamu and others defendants No. 1 to 5 tried to take forcible possession of the house in the year 1976 -77 under the cover of the custody of the said original sale deed. When Lal Singh defendant No.6 who was present in the village filed a suit for permanent injunction at Kamal restraining Mamu and others defendants No. 1 to 5 from taking unlawfully and forcibly the possession of the said house but Mamu and others defendants No. 1 to 5 with the help of other persons managed to take forcible possession of the said house and open space etc. As a consequence, suit for permanent injunction filed by Lal Singh became infructuous. It is further alleged in the plaint that Mamu and others defendants No. 1 to'5 have no right, title or interest to remain in possession of the property which is part of the Field No. 112/29, the boundaries of which have been given in para No.2 of the plaint. Mamu and others defendants No. 1 to 5 are trespassers. Their possession is unlawful, illegal and unauthorised.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 to 5 contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that they are in possession of the property for the last more than 30 years. Their possession is to the knowledge of Balkar Singh plaintiff and others as such no cause of action has accrued to Balkar Singh to file the suit as they i.e. Mamu and others have become owners by virtue of adverse possession.