BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal directed by plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2011 passed by Shri Karamjit Singh, Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide which the appeal preferred by plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2009 passed by Shri Yukti Goyal, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated Balwant Singh plaintiff filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the allegations that he is in possession of land measuring 14Kanals 12Marlas fully described in the heading of the plaint for the last fifteen years. Possession of the plaintiff has been recorded in the revenue record from Sauni 1974 onwards. Possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is continuous, uninterrupted, hostile open to the knowledge of the State of Punjab and of Irrigation Department and he has been cultivating the property without paying anything and as such he has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Notice under Section 80 of the CPC was issued upon the defendants on 28.03.2007 which was received by the defendants on 04.04.2007, but the defendants have not admitted the claim of the plaintiff, hence the suit.

(3.) UPON notice, defendants filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties ; suit being not properly verified under Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. It is further alleged that possession of the plaintiff is not continuous, uninterrupted, hostile and open to the knowledge of answering defendants and in fact the land was given to the plaintiff in an open auction being the highest bidder for the year 1986 -87 for specific period of one year only and after that plaintiff has an unauthorized possession over the suit land and there is contested litigation between the parties under the Punjab Public Premises Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1973 to vacate the land in dispute and recovery of rent. On merits, defendant denied the allegations of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.