LAKHBIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. AJMER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment, I am disposing of two regular second appeals i.e. RSA No. 1790 of 2010 and RSA No. 1791 of 2010, both titled Lakhbir Singh and others versus Ajmer Singh. These appeals have arisen out of two suits -one instituted by respondent -plaintiff Ajmer Singh and the other instituted by his father Gulwant Singh (since deceased and represented by Ajmer Singh respondent as his legal representative). Both suits were decreed by the trial court vide common judgment and decrees dated 6.9.2006. Both first appeals preferred by defendants in the two suits were also dismissed by common judgment and decrees dated 11.5.2009 by the lower appellate court. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have filed these two second appeals. Plaintiffs in both the suits claimed to be owners of the respective suit property. Ajmer Singh plaintiff pleaded that he inherited the suit property from Amar Singh son of Bishan Singh who was owner thereof and who executed Will dated 19.12.1977 in favour of the plaintiff. Gulwant Singh pleaded that he is owner of the suit property involved in his suit. Both the plaintiffs pleaded that on 20.5.1997, defendants inflicted injuries to plaintiff Ajmer Singh and to Major Singh son -in -law of plaintiff Gulwant Singh and forcibly and illegally occupied the suit property of both the suits. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought possession of respective suit property of both the suits.

(2.) THE defendants resisted the suits and denied the averments of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that defendants are owners in possession of both the suit properties since the time of their ancestors. Suit property bears khasra number and is part of residential house of the defendants. It was denied that Amar Singh was owner of the suit property pleaded in the suit of Ajmer Singh and that Gulwant Singh was owner of the property of his suit. Various other pleas were also raised.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants contended that there is no cogent evidence to prove that either plaintiff was owner of the suit property. It was contended that there is no evidence to prove that Amar Singh predecessor -in -interest of Ajmer Singh was owner of the suit property of that suit or that Gulwant Singh was owner of the suit property of his suit.