PARVATI DEVI Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay of 26 days in filing the present appeal.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit filed by the plaintiff on the ground that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute being proprietors and co-sharers of the village. The father of the defendants was the owner in possession of the land in dispute and was a co-sharer. He died about 10-15 years ago and thereafter the defendants inherited the suit property as owner in possession. Earlier, sons of the plaintiff along with plaintiff have tried to interfere in the peaceful possession of the defendants. The defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and her sons, which is still pending.

(3.) On the basis of evidence led on the file, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that defendants have proved their possession by way of oral as well as documentary evidence i.e. jamabandi Exhibits D-1 to D-3 for the years 1984-85, 1988-89, 1994-95 and demarcation report dtd. 18/1/2013 as Mark 'A'. The plaintiff herself admitted in the crossexamination that she had no knowledge how the possession of the suit property came to her and she could not produce any ownership document on the record. She has stated that no girdawari exists in her favour and she had no evidence qua her possession. She has further admitted that defendant Tara Chand had already filed a suit for permanent injunction dtd. 16/10/2012 against her sons, namely, Sultan, Surajmal and Ajay. The plaintiff had filed the suit after the suit filed by defendant Tara Chand. The other witnesses who have been examined by plaintiff are Mani Ram as PW-2 and Jago Devi as PW-3, who have stated that the possession of the plaintiff is hostile and sundry. The learned trial Court has opined that the plaintiff has failed to prove even site plan of the suit property and there is no document of ownership in her favour. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed against said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court.