SAWARAN SINGH Vs. SAWINDER KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this second appeal: -

(2.) IN my view, the decision of the appellate Court is erroneous and is bound to be set aside. If the plaintiff was suing for recovery of possession on assertion of title to the property through his purchases from the 3rd defendant under two documents of sale and the trial Court had also found that the sale deeds to be valid and constituting a transfer of title, the plaintiff could not have been non -suited especially when the defendants had admitted that the original owner was the 3rd defendant. When the contention in defence however was that she sold the property to Sawinder in the year 1961, who, in turn, had sold it to him in 2001, the alleged sale in favour of Sawinder to displace the transfer of title to the plaintiffs had not been produced. Even the alleged purchase by the defendants was also not produced. If the defendants could not secure a better title, then the only issue was whether the defendants had prescribed any title to the property. There was a feeble attempt at the time of trial that the defendants had been in possession of the property for 16 years. Such a contention could not yield to any legal effect without a plea of adverse possession. There was no proof of possession for 16 years and there had been also no finding of adverse possession in favour of the defendants. Consequently, the only issue was whether there was any error in the frame of suit that could have non -suited him.