STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the averments made, the plaintiff -respondent purchased the land measuring 2 bighas - 0 biswa comprised in Khasra No. 562/1 situated in village Chandraon Sub Tehsil Indri, Tehsil and District Karnal from appellant No. 2 on 04.03.1964 in an open auction for a consideration of Rs. 431/ - which was paid on that very day and thus, the plaintiff -respondent has been in possession of the suit property and has become an owner of the land in dispute. It is the further case of the plaintiff that mutation No. 1725 was also sanctioned in his favour by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Karnal on 14.9.1964. During the consolidation, the said khasra No. 526/1 has been changed to Khewat No. 124 Khatoni No. 134, Rect No. 28 Killa No. 25/2(2 -18) Rect. No. 71, Killa No. 5 (0 -5) situated in village Chandraon, Tehsil and District Karnal. According to plaintiff -respondent, previous to the aforesaid purchase, the plaintiff -respondent was in possession of the land in dispute as a gair marusi tenant as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1964 -65. It the case of the plaintiff -respondent that he is in interrupted possession of the land in dispute in the jamabandi for the year 1979 -80. The entries have been made showing him as a tenant and in the ownership column as owner of the land in dispute. It is the case of the plaintiff -respondent that apart from this, the said wrong entries have been made by the appellants as the plaintiff -respondent had purchased the said property in open auction on 04.03.1964 for a consideration of Rs. 431/ - and thus, have acquired title of the property. However, in civil suit plaintiff -respondent also pleaded alternative plea that in case his ownership over the land in dispute is not proved, his title over the suit property being open, continuous and hostile, he has become owner in possession of the land in dispute by way of adverse possession. Defendant appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the plaintiff -respondent. Whereas, in the replication, the plaintiff -respondent has reasserted and reaffirmed the averments of the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: -

(2.) BOTH the parties led evidence.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff -respondent by deciding all the issues against the defendant -appellants.