CHHOTE AND ANOTHER Vs. KARNA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby the suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from taking forcible possession was dismissed in appeal. The plaintiffs -appellants filed suit for injunction in respect of the land measuring 2 kanals 19 marlas comprising in khewat No. 81 and 85 -Min, Khata Nos. 119 and 123, Rect. and Killa No. 37//8/2 and 8/4 situated in the revenue estate of village Chatia Qila as per jamabandi for the year 1979 -80. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants are encroachers on the said land owned by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the defendant should remove the encroachments and hand over possession of the land to the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 and 2 admitted claim of the Plaintiff in the written statement dated 20.7.1983, whereas the defendant No 4 and 5 asserted possession over the land in question situated within lal dora asserting that their houses are in existence since long from the time of their ancestors. They also raised plea that in any case, they have perfected their possession into title being in possession for more than 12 years. It was also pleaded that the defendant No 1 and 2 executed sale in favour of Smt. Nawab Kaur on 15.7.1983 and that the defendants are purchasers from her.

(2.) THE learned trial Court decreed the suit partly granted decree for injunction in respect of portions F.I.J.K., D.E.F.C. and ABCD, as shown in red colour in the site plan. In respect of the other land, defendants No. 4, 5 and 5 -A were restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 6 to 8. However, in appeal the learned first Appellate Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the land in Jamabandi Ex. P -2 and as shown in Ex. P -3 is the same which is in possession of the defendants. The Court found that the site plan has been prepared by PW 2 Kailash Bhushan without consulting revenue record. Thus, the suit qua possession in respect of the aforesaid land was dismissed. The relevant finding of the learned first Appellate Court is as under: -

(3.) IN view of the said fact, I do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Consequently, the regular second appeal is dismissed.