MALLU Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this execution second appeal by a defendant-judgment-debtor, it would be necessary to recite the facts that preceded the passing of the decree for joint possession of a vacant piece of land which is being executed by the respondent, decree-holders.

(2.) IN the plaint filed by the decree-holder-respondents in 1956, the subject matter of the suit was described as a vacant piece of land, measuring 146 and odd square yards in area and situated opposite the Harijan Mohalla in the abadi of village Gias pura. All the seventeen plaintiffs and Mallu appellant belong to that community. The suit was for the possession of the vacant site and it was averred in the plaint that the defendant-appellant, who was in possession, was wrongfully claiming ownership under some registered sale deeds dated 16/ 17-8-1954. The persons from whom he claimed to have purchased the site had also been impleaded as defendants. The averments in the plaint were that the plaintiff-respondents had become owners of the vacant site by adverse possession lasting over a period of more than 12 years and that their possession could not be illegally disturbed by the appellant and that his vendors had no valid title which they could pass on to him.

(3.) THE trial Judge, found, after a critical examination of the oral evidence examined by the parties, that the appellant had failed to prove any ownership over the site in dispute which was a part of the shamilat deh and that the plaintiffs' possession over this land had been disturbed by the appellant about a year or two before the institution of the suit. The plaintiffs had also failed to prove any hostile or adverse possession for the requisite number of years but it was found that before the appellant had gone into possession of the vacant site, the plaintiffs had been using it for tethering of cattle and storage of manure and that they had erected some mangers (khurlis) over the land. By virtue of their possessory title, the plaintiffs were granted a decree for joint possession against the defendant-appellant. It was found that the plaintiffs could be granted this lesser relief even though they had claimed the right to go into exclusive possession of the site.