KARAM SINGH Vs. BALDEV MITTER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby the suit for possession decreed by the learned Trial Court was dismissed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession of a residential house described as Property No. 107 in Farad Khana Shumari of village Goraya wherein one Dulla was recorded as owner. The plaintiff claimed the possession of the suit property as successor -in -interest of Dulla to the extent to one half share and pleading that the remaining half share vest with the heirs of Nand Singh who were impleaded as defendants No. 3 to 7. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1960, a partition was effected between the plaintiff and the heirs of Nand Singh wherein the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff while the heirs of Nand Singh were given other property situated in village Dallewal and in village Goraya. The plaintiff was having family relations with one Khushia Ram who is uncle of defendants No. 1 and 2. As the plaintiff has started living in village Dallewal, Khushia Ram was allowed to live in the suit property about 11 months back to the filing of the suit. After some time Khushia Ram shifted to his residential house but defendants No. 1 and 2 occupied the house which was vacated by Khushia Ram in the absence of the plaintiff and thus, filed suit for possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 2 and 6. It was the stand of defendant No. 6 that the plaintiff and Nand Singh were in joint possession to the extent of one fourth share and rest was in joint possession of defendants No. 3 to 10 in a separate written statement, it was the stand of defendants No. 1 and 2 that the suit suffers from mis -joinder and non joinder of necessary parties and that the suit is time barred. Ownership of the plaintiff was denied and it was denied that the said house is part of Khasra No. (Property) 107 and Dulla is not owner of the site in dispute. The defendants alleged that they are owners in possession of the site in dispute. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the defendants have been in possession right from his father for the last more than 25 years as owners and have also made construction on it and thus, the possession of the defendants over the site in dispute is that of owners, hostile to the rights of the plaintiff and thus, the defendants have become owners of the suit property by adverse possession.