JAGDISH CHAND SHARMA Vs. NANAK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal by defendant no.3 Jagdish Chand Sharma. Respondent no.1-plaintiff Nanak Chand filed suit against Gram Panchayat ? defendant no.1/respondent no.2 and Rajesh Sharma ? defendant no.2/respondent no.3. Appellant Jagdish Chand Sharma was impleaded as party to the suit as defendant no.3 on his application, dismissed by the trial court, but allowed by this Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff alleged that there is temple of Lord Shiva in the suit property and defendant no.2, in collusion with defendant no.1 Gram Panchayat, wanted to demolish the temple and cut away trees existing in the suit property. THE plaintiff sought permanent injunction against defendants no.1 and 2 from doing so.

(3.) DEFENDANT no.2 claimed to be in adverse possession of the suit property since the year 1963 and claimed to have become its owner by adverse possession. Existence of temple in the suit property was denied. DEFENDANT no.3-appellant alleged that the suit property is part of Khasra No.505 min. measuring 19 marlas and defendant no.3 is owner in possession thereof. His room and trees exist there. Existence of temple or Ashram in the suit land was denied. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, vide judgment and decree dated 11.02.2006, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff filed first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court. DEFENDANT no.1 Gram Panchayat filed cross-objections in the first appeal challenging the alleged finding of the trial court that defendant no.3 is in possession of the suit land. Learned Additional District Judge, Palwal, vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2010, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and allowed cross-objections preferred by defendant no.1 holding that observation made by the trial court that defendant no.3 is in possession of the suit land will not be binding on the rights of defendant no.1. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.3 has filed this second appeal challenging acceptance of cross-objections of defendant no.1 by the lower appellate court.