MILKHI SINGH Vs. MEHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenging the judgment and decree dated 30-4-1983 passed by the learned District Judge, Sangrur reversing the judgment and decree dated 27-11-1981 of the sub Judge First Class, Dhuri. The learned District Judge has repelled the claim of the plaintiff appellant that he is in adverse possession of the suit land continuously, openly arid adversely to the real owners and has failed to perfect his title.

(2.) Plaintiff-appellant filed civil suit No. 685 on 14-11-1979 seeking a declaration that he is owner In possession of the suit land. It has been asserted that the defendant-respondents were the owners in possession of the suit land but on account of adverse possession of the plaintiff-appellant for the last more than 12 years, he has become owner of the same and the adverse possession of the plaintiff appellant has ripened into ownership. The plaintiff-appellant has claimed in the suit that the defendantrespondents have no connection with the suit land and he has become the sole owner. Defendant-respondents 1 to 12 filed their joint written statement controverting the assertion of adverse possession for the last more than 12years. It has also been claimed that the suit land was barred and as such it continued to be in possession of the defendant-respondent. The further stand taken by the defendant-respondent is that the suit land came into possession of the plaintiffappellant for the first time in the year 1977-78 when he entered on the land as tenant. It has been claimed that vacant land is always considered to be in the possession of the owners. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed :

(3.) The trial Court after examining the oral as well as documentary evidence based on revenue record, recorded a finding that the plaintiff-appellant is in continuous, uninterrupted, hostile and adverse possession over the suit land prior to the year 1965-66 and, therefore, a declaration is liable to be made declaring that the plaintiff-appellant is the owner in possession of the suit land. A decree to that effect was passed.