ONKAR SINGH Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are before this Court against the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court whereby that of the learned Trial Court was reversed and the suit filed by them was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants -plaintiffs submitted that the respondents entered into an agreement to sell for the land in question with the appellants on 20.12.1982 for a total consideration of Rs. 2, 82, 662/ -. The last date for registration of sale -deed was fixed as 15.3.1983. It was extended upto 31.8.1983. The suit for declaration was filed by the appellants on 18.3.1983 claiming themselves to be the owners of the land in dispute and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents -defendants from interfering into their possession as the appellants had been put in possession of the land after execution of the aforesaid agreement to sell. The decree for permanent injunction was granted. Subsequently, another suit was filed by the appellants on 9.8.1983 claiming ownership of the same land pleading that it is on account of exchange with some other land located in Saharnpur. Plea for adverse possessions was also taken. The suit was dismissed on 15.10.1983. The judgment and decree was upheld by the first Appellate Court on 13.6.1985. Even RSA No. 2837 of 1985 Onkar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and others was dismissed by this Court on 23.5.2012. During the pendency of aforesaid appeal before this Court the suit in question was filed on 19.8.2004 claiming ownership on the basis of adverse possession. The trial court decreed the suit. However, the learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. It is the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court which has been impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as far as the ownership of the land of the respondents is concerned, there is no dispute. The appellants have failed twice seeking ownership of the land. Plea of adverse possession cannot be raised by the plaintiffs. It can only be a weapon of defence. Even otherwise, once on the same very plea, the appellants filed suit in the year 1983 and the matter came upto this Court in RSA No. 2837 of 1985, which was dismissed on 23.5.2012, the appellants cannot be permitted to raise the same plea again and again. In fact, the appellants had been misusing the process of law. As during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before this Court, he filed the present suit on 19.8.2004 seeking declaration as owner on the plea of adverse possession when earlier the appellants had filed suit on the same account and RSA No. 2837 of 1985 was pending in this Court.