SURENDER KUMAR Vs. AMRIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal brought by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge [Junior Division], Kurukshetra dismissing their suit as also the judgment and decree dated 8.3.2013 passed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs -appellants has been dismissed. The plaintiffs had brought a suit for declaration to the effect that they have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession. They also sought the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the suit property and from alienating the same. The claim of the plaintiffs -appellants is as under: - The house in dispute was owned by the vendors of the defendant. Ejectment order was passed in relation to this house against plaintiff No. 1 on 11.5.1991 in a rent petition. Appeal against that ejectment order was withdrawn by plaintiff No. 1 on 26.11.1992 and, consequently, the tenancy rights of plaintiff No. 1 stood extinguished in this manner. On 1.12.1992, one of the landlords executed a rent note in favour of plaintiff No. 2 and since then, the plaintiffs are residing in the house in question. Plaintiffs have claimed their possession over the disputed house to be hostile to the knowledge of the entire world. They have even raised construction of the house. No execution was ever filed by the landlords. The landlords, however, filed a contempt petition. The plaintiffs have claimed that their possession over the disputed house is uninterrupted from December, 1992. In this way, the decree is sought for declaration that the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession.

(2.) THE suit is resisted by the defendant who is a purchaser of the house in question from its previous owners. He has claimed that eviction order was passed against plaintiff No. 1 in the year 1992 and despite that, plaintiff No. 1 did not vacate the house in question. It is further averred that plaintiff No. 1 was convicted in the contempt proceedings on 13.5.1993 which continued till the year 2005. The review petition filed by plaintiff No. 1 against the order dated 19.1.2004 was also dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial court.

(3.) WHETHER the suit is based on concealment and perjury? OPD