TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS (plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they had become owners in possession of the land, description of which was given in heading of the plaint. It was further prayed that consequential relief of permanent injunction be granted to them, restraining respondent Nos. 1 and 2, not to interfere in their ownership and possessory rights in that land. It is apparent from the records that to claim ownership, appellants had based their claim on adverse possession. After contest, their suit was dismissed. They also failed in appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) BEFORE the trial Court, it was case of the appellants that they are owners and are in peaceful possession of the land, in dispute, for the last more than 30 years, without any interruption and also without payment of rent to the respondents. They had constructed their houses over that property. Their possession was never objected by the respondents, rather, they have been provided with all facilities, like sewerage, drinking water and electricity etc. Municipal authorities have even sent notice for collection of house tax from the appellants. It was further asserted that their possession was in the knowledge of the respondents, despite that, no attempt was ever made to dispossess them from the land, in dispute. They were compelled to file the present suit, when an attempt was made by the respondents to dispossess them forcibly from the land, in dispute.

(3.) BEFORE this Court, it has vehemently been contended by Shri Verma, appearing for the appellants, that both the Courts below have committed an error of jurisdiction, by not discussing any of the documents, brought on record by both the parties. By referring to contents of judgments and decrees of the Courts below, counsel contended that to prove their adverse possession, appellants had brought on record as many as 37 documents. None of those documents was considered by the Courts below, as such, judgments and decrees passed, were vitiated and deserve to be set aside. Counsel further contended that it has been proved on record that the appellants were in settled possession of the property, in dispute. They had constructed their houses and were provided basic civil amenities by the Municipal Committee and other government departments, as such, they cannot be dispossessed, except otherwise in due course of law. Both the Courts below have erred while declining relief of permanent injunction to them. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Mohinder Pal and others, 2002(2) PLJ 170 and Rame Gowda (D) Lrs. v. Mr. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. and another, 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 519 (SC). He prayed that appeal be allowed and judgments and decrees under challenge be set aside.