BHUPINDER NATH Vs. SURASTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this appeal pertains to land measuring 5 Kanals, 8 Marias bearing Khewat Nos. 20 and 21, Khatauni No. 31, Khasra No. 14R/7/4(5-8) situated in village Majra, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, Surasti, the respondent in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff") filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Bhupinder Nath and Kishori Lal (hereinafter referred to "defendant-appellants"). The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11-12-1978. Appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar on 1-10-1980.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaratory decree against the defendant-appellants that she and her predecessors-in-interest are owners in possession of the land in dispute since 1935-36 and even earlier, the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest were never owners of the land in dispute and if at all, they are found to be so, their rights stood extinguished since long; the possession of the plaintiff and her predecessors-in-interest over the land in dispute remained continuous, uninterrupted and to the knowledge of the defendants, and their predecessors-in-interest had no right, title or interest over the land in dispute and she acquired the ownership right thereof by adverse possession. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendants were out to dispossess her from the land in dispute and, thus, she prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in her possession and enjoyment regarding the land in dispute.

(3.) The defendants-appellants denied the allegations in the written statement of adverse possession of the plaintiff. It was specifically pleaded that neither the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. It was also pleaded that the defendants installed a tube-well and electric motor and constructed a building in the fields purchased from Rirku and had made improvements on the suit land by spending a huge amount of about Rs. 1500/- and that the defendants purchased the property from Rirku son of Dev Raj vide registered sale deed dated 23-4-1965 and since then, they had been in possession of the suit land as owners.