LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-320

RAKESH AND ORS. Vs. DHARAMPAL AND ORS.

Decided On April 08, 2015
Rakesh And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Dharampal And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of the above mentioned three regular second appeals filed by Rakesh, Dalip, Chiria Devi, Shri Chand, Ishwar Singh, Shishpal, Paro Devi and Madan appellants -defendants against Dharampal, Sedha Ram, Gaja Nand, Meer Singh and Dhanpat respondents -plaintiffs as similar point arises for determination in these appeals. All these appeals are being taken up together for decision as in all the appeals the same point is involved and all the cases are filed by the same plaintiffs almost taking the same pleas in all these cases. Similarly, though the defendants are different in all these three cases, but they have taken almost similar pleas and have led almost similar evidence and the questions to be decided in the present appeals are the same.

(2.) BOTH the learned counsel have stated that these appeal may be decided together as the same points are involved regarding the evidence and the evidence is also of similar nature.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the defendants in the written statement is that the plot in dispute, prior to consolidation, which took place in the year 1962 -63, was under the possession of the father of the defendants, namely, Rama Nand, who constructed a residential house in the year 1982. During the life time of the father of the defendants, he himself remained owner in possession of the plot in dispute. The father of the defendants died in the year 1994 and after his death the defendants became owners in possession of the same and now the possession of the defendants over the plot in dispute is hostile to the knowledge of everyone including the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendants by way of adverse possession have become owners and the plaintiffs have no right or concern with the ownership and possession of the defendants over the plot in dispute. The entries in the revenue record showing the plaintiffs as owners of the plot in dispute are wrong against law and facts, null and void, not binding on the rights of the defendants.