RAM SARUP Vs. GURDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has preferred the instant regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.1987 passed by learned Sub Judge, IInd Class, Panipat whereby suit of the plaintiff has been decreed and judgment and decree dated 18.09.1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal whereby appeal preferred by the appellantdefendant has been dismissed.

(2.) Respondent-plaintiff filed suit for possession claiming himself to be owner of the suit property which is a bara detailed in head-note and para 2 of plaint. It was averred that the father of plaintiff had given the suit property to the defendant about 10 years prior to the date of institution of suit for the purpose of tethering the cattle without any payment of rent, therefore, the possession of the defendant was permissive in nature. When the plaintiff demanded back the possession of the suit property from the defendant, the defendant refused his request which necessitated the plaintiff to file a suit for possession.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendant put in appearance and filed written statement denying the ownership of the plaintiff in the suit property. On merits, it is averred that the plaintiff is not the owner of entire area of 1 kanal comprised in khasra no.519. The plaintiff is only owner of 10 marlas out of 1 kanals of bara no.519 i.e northern part and remaining part of bara no.519 i.e. southern part of khasra no.519 measuring 10 marlas is owned and possessed by the defendant. The defendant took this portion of suit property from Neki son of Nanak in the year 1966 in exchange of his share in the house situated in abadi deh of village Naultha. Thereafter, he had constructed boundary walls in that portion of the property in the year 1966 and in the year 1969, he constructed two kothas in this land. In 1971, the defendant installed a sugarcane crusher in it and got electric connection in order to run the crusher. It is also averred that the defendant has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit property for the last more than 12 years and has also become owner by way of adverse possession of the suit property.