JASMER SINGH Vs. SAJJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellant is the owner of the agricultural land measuring 0 K-12 Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 21/1/8-K-CM and 10/0-12 situated at village Daffarpur Tehsil Rajpura and that the ownership has been duly spelt out in the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73. It may be noticed that there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the plaintiff-appellant. Adjoining to this land, the land of Sukhdev Singh, which has been recently purchased by defendant-respondent No. 1, is situated but the same falls within the Hadbast of village Moh. Thirkri. It is alleged that the defendants demolished the boundary daul by which the area stood demarcated so far as the plaintiffs are not concerned. The land described above stood illegally occupied by the defendants.

(2.) THE plaintiff-appellants moved an application before the revenue authorities for seeking demarcation of the land and consequently the Kanungo carried out the demarcation and specifically specified that the land belongs to the plaintiff-appellant and is in illegal possession of the defendants. Resultantly, the suit for possession was filed which has been contested by the defendant-respondents. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues were struck. The documentary as well as oral evidence has been led. The plaintiffs produced the Kanungo who had demarcated the land upon the application of the plaintiff-appellants. He has been duly cross-examined by the defendant-respondents but no suggestion has been put to him that the demarcation was carried out without issuing any notice to the defendant- respondents and further no suggestion has been given that it was mandatory to issue notice to the other side before carrying out the exercise of demarcation.

(3.) BEING dis-satisfied with the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the ownership of the plaintiff-appellants has been admitted and the same has not been challenged by any one. The only question which was raised before the trial Court was that the defendant-respondents have illegally encroached upon the land belonging to the plaintiff-appellant. It is further argued that before filing the said suit an application had been filed by him before the revenue authorities for seeking demarcation of the land. The Kanungo demarcated the land in pursuant to the rules and regulations applicable for carrying out demarcation as the measurement was carried out by identifying the pucca Burji and also the land falling in different villages. It is further argued that the lower Appellate Court has fallen into error in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court only on the premises that no notice had been issued to the defendant-respondents. It was not mandatory on the part of the revenue authorities to have issued notice when the matter was absolutely clear from the revenue record prepared in respect of the aforesaid land.