RAM SINGH Vs. PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2008. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2010. That is how, the defendant is before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) IN short, in a suit filed by the plaintiff, he prayed for a declaration and injunction that he was the owner in possession of the suit property located in khewat No. 384, khatoni No. 449, mustatil No. 25, killa No. 26, measuring 5 kanals 7 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Khori, Tehshil and District Rewari. Plaintiff had purchased an area measuring 4 kanal 13 marla out of the said land vide registered sale deed dated 14.09.1998. One Dharam Chand and Usha were also co -sharers along with the plaintiff in the said killa No. 26. Plaintiff purported to have also purchased property in the west of the above said property from Smt. Shashi daughter of Harish Chand and Roopkanti widow of Harish Chand, vide sale deed dated 02.02.2000. Thus, the plaintiff purports to be the owner in possession of the land marked ABCD highlighted in red colour in the site plan. It was averred that immediately after purchasing the said property, plaintiff raised a tin shed on killa No. 26 and another tin shed on the disputed property. Further, property of the defendants was lying to the western side beyond the raasta adjacent to the disputed property. As the defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff, thus the suit.

(3.) ON an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, learned trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the site plans relied upon by the parties to the lis contradicts their respective stands and the revenue record. Thus, learned trial Court predicated its analysis and conclusions on the demarcation report Ex. P4 and Shazra Aks Ex. P7, to determine the real dimensions and situation of the suit property. It was observed that the Field Kanungo was directed, pursuant to the order dated 04.06.2003 passed by the Court, to report as to whether any portion of tin shed falls in rectangle No. 25, killa No. 26, after verifying revenue records. And the Field Kanungo had reported that in killa No. 25/26, a tin shed measuring 39 feet (east) x 38 feet (west) 15 feet (south) x 25 feet (north)= 742 feet, had been constructed and half of that tin shed extended into the old abadi area. That being so, it was observed that the report Ex. P4, brought the entire controversy to rest as it stood crystallised that the tin shed constructed on killa No. 25/25 also covered old abadi area. Thus, as so observed, the learned trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff was the owner in possession of killa No. 26 and had raised tin shed on the same. It was also found that it was this construction of the plaintiff, which indeed covered old abadi (disputed area), meaning thereby plaintiff was in possession of the disputed area. Fact, that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the disputed area was further corroborated by the deposition of Attar Singh DW2. It was concluded that once the demarcation report showed that tin shed raised on killa No. 25/26 stretches over the abadi area, then half of the things which the defendants claim to have placed on the disputed area i.e. Kuri, bitora, fuel wood etc. automatically fell in killa No. 25//26. Thus, the learned trial Court observed that this completely dents the case of the plaintiff viz -a -viz his claims for possession over disputed portion. Resultantly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.03.2008 and consequently the defendants were restrained permanently from interfering in killa No. 26 of rectangle No. 25 and in the adjacent area towards west direction till rasta, i.e. in the old abadi area, which was observed to be under the ownership and possession of plaintiff.