SATPAL AND RAM PARKASH SEHGAL Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed the present suit against the defendant for possession of land measuring 3 Bighas and 15 Biswas bearing khewat No. 69, khatoni No. 138 in Khasra No. 1106 situated at village Bauran Kalan, Tehsil Nabha District Patiala. As per the jamabandi for the year 1973- 74, the plaintiff has been shown the owner of the land measuring 42 bighas, 11 biswas comprised in khewat and khatoni numbers as spelt out in the heading of the plaint which includes the area in question i.e. 3 bighas, 15 biswas. It has also been stated that the land of the defendant adjoins the land of the plaintiff and, therefore, taking advantage of this fact, he encroached upon the land belonging to the plaintiff measuring 3 bighas and 15 biswas as stated above. The plaintiff-appellant requested the defendant to deliver back the possession but no response was received accordingly, which amounted to refusal by the defendant. Thus, the suit for possession was filed.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit and filed detailed submissions to the pleadings of the plaintiff. He has specifically claimed by way of additional plea that he has become the owner of land comprised in Khasra No. 1106 measuring 3 bighas and 15 biswas by virtue of adverse possession, therefore, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit for possession.

(3.) THE trial Court has given a categoric finding that the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute. It has also been found as a matter of fact that the defendant has encroached upon the land in question. A report of Local Commissioner had also been submitted and that placing reliance thereon the aforestated finding has been returned by the trial Court. The issue regarding limitation and acquisition of ownership by the defendant by virtue of adverse possession have been dealt with together. It has been found as a matter of fact that pursuant to the earliest khasra girdawari for the year 1963-64, possession of the defendant over the suit land stands established. However, the claim of adverse possession of the defendant has not been accepted by the trial court as it has been held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is primarily based on title and, therefore, the limitation of the suit would be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act and that the suit has been filed for possession within 12 years, which is obviously within the limitation. Resultantly, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant had been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 10.8.1978.