INDERJEET WADHWAN Vs. JAGJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Inderjit Wadhwa, appellant, against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by Jagjit plaintiff against Bharat Singh defendant (who was ex parte) was decreed and the appeal filed by Inderjit Wadhwa, appellant was dismissed as time barred (after dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal), by the Additional District Judge.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present case are that on 30-10-2000, Jagjit plaintiff filed a suit for possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction against Bharat Singh defendant, alleging therein that he had purchased disputed plot measuring 204 square yards from Smt. Vidyawati, vide registered sale deed dated 30-1-1989 and the possession of the disputed plot was also delivered to the plaintiff by said Smt. Vidyawati on the same day and since then the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the said plot. It was alleged that subsequently it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the entire area out of the aforesaid plot, as detailed in the sale deed dated 30-1-1989 and the site plan Ex. P-1, had not been delivered to him and that the disputed portion ABCD, shown in red colour in the site plan, was in illegal and unauthorised possession of Bharat Singh defendant, whose plot was adjoining the plot in dispute. It was alleged that the plaintiff requested the defendant to hand over the possession of the disputed portion ABCD but the defendant refused to do so which resulted in the filing of the present suit for possession.

(3.) Bharat Singh defendant initially contested the suit and filed written statement admitting therein that the plaintiff had purchased plot No. 249 but it was denied that he (defendant) was in illegal and unauthorised possession of the disputed portion. On the other hand, it was alleged that in fact he was owner in possession of the disputed portion. Subsequently, on 2-3-2001, no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and accordingly, Bharat Singh defendant was proceeded against ex parte and the case was fixed for ex parte evidence of the plaintiff. After recording ex parte evidence of the plaintiff, the learned trial Court., vide judgment and decree dated 12-5-2003, decreed the suit of Jagjit plaintiff ex parte by declaring that he was the owner of the disputed portion ABCD, shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. P-1 and the defendant was directed to handover possession thereof to the plaintiff.