RUPINDER KAUR Vs. SUSHIL AZAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application is allowed as prayed for.

(2.) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dtd. 9/8/2019 by which, the suit for possession filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff was allowed as well as the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dtd. 30/1/2021 by which, the appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant argues that while allowing the suit, due consideration has been given to demarcation report, stated to have been done under the orders of the competent authority but, the same cannot be given effect as, appellant-Rupinder Kaur was not present at the spot at the time of demarcation. Learned counsel submits that though, as per the demarcation report Ex.PW1/B, the appellant has been shown to be in possession of area more than the area which was purchased, but the said report should have been discarded by the Courts below to arrive at a finding that the appellant has encroached upon the area owned by respondent No.1-plaintiff.