BALWINDER SINGH Vs. NANAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly. Plaintiff Balwinder Singh having been non-suited by the courts below is in second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit alleging that he is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 16 kanals comprised of khasra no. 1095 to the exclusion of the defendants who have no right, title or interest therein. Plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from dispossessing him therefrom in any manner. The plaintiff alleged that earlier his father Gurdev Singh was recorded to be owner of the suit land as Billa Lagan Bawaja Haqshuffa in khasra girdawaries since the year 1961 till his death on 11.11.1982 and thereafter the entries are in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to have become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. In some other suit, defendants admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land but now they threatened to interfere in his possession and to dispossess him from the suit land.

(2.) DEFENDANTS no. 1 to 5 contested the suit and denied the plaint averments. It was denied that plaintiff is either owner or in possession of the suit land. Khasra girdawari entries have been ordered to be corrected in favour of defendants by the Collector vide order dated 29.11.2001 and appeal of plaintiff against the same was dismissed by the Commissioner on 28.8.2002 and the said order has been implemented vide report no. 68 dated 17.10.2002 and necessary correction has been made in the revenue record in favour of the defendants. Legal heirs of Kartar Singh since deceased have also not been impleaded as party to the suit. It was pleaded that defendants are owners in actual possession of the suit land. Plaintiff never remained in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Plaintiff failed to produce any documentary evidence i.e. jamabandi etc. depicting him to be owner or in possession of the suit land. In the absence of documentary evidence, the plaintiff cannot be held to be owner or in possession of the suit land. On the contrary, the plaintiff in his cross-examination stated that khasra girdawari till 1960-61 recorded possession of the plaintiff's father but thereafter khasra girdawari is recorded in the names of the defendants. Kaur Singh PW3 stated that he did not know as to who is in possession of the suit land. Thus, plaintiff has failed to prove that he ever remained in possession of the suit land. On the contrary, the defendants have been recorded to be owners as well as in possession of the suit land. Khasra girdawari has been corrected in their favour vide order dated 29.11.2001 Ex. D1 passed by the Collector upheld by the Commissioner vide order dated 28.8.2002, Ex. D2 in appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Vide report Ex. D3, the said order has also been implemented in the revenue record. Possession of defendants has been recorded in khasra girdawaries. Thus, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case.