JOGINDER SINGH Vs. SHAMBHU SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant regular second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff against the judgments passed by both the Courts below in a suit for declaration, asserting his title on the suit property by adverse possession. A prayer for injunction was also made. Aggrieved by the denial of the relief by the lower Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal but remained unsuccessful. Now he has approached this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) A suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiff with respect to 7 Kanals of land, situated in Village Janesaron in District Karnal. The plaintiff relied upon the entries of Jamabandi where his possession was recorded as Gair Marusi, Bila Lagan Bawaja Nazayaj Kabza. The plaintiff's case was that he had occupied the suit land on 01.12.1989 and was cultivating the same without payment of any rent/batai/lagan to defendant no.1 or any other person and had spent a huge amount on the boring and installing of an engine and since his possession was continuing without any interruption and was open, hostile and continuous to the knowledge of defendant no.1. He had become owner by adverse possession. It was pleaded that defendants tried to dispossess him. The plaintiff also challenged the sale deed dated 27.09.2004, vide which the land had been sold to defendant no.3. Defendants no.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte. The only contesting defendant no.3 took more than one preliminary objections on merits specifically the plea of maintainability. It was pleaded that he had acquired title to the land by virtue of the sale deed dated 27.09.2004 executed by defendant no.1 through his GPA -defendant no.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/ -. It was pleaded that possession was handed over to him at the time of execution of the sale deed. Plea was raised that the land was allotted to defendant no.1 and entry in this regard was made in the revenue record vide Rapat dated 02.09.1984 and the mutation was entered and sanctioned. It was denied that the possession of the plaintiff was to his notice or knowledge. It was pleaded that the entries had been made behind his back.

(3.) THE plaintiff did not file any replication. The parties went to trial on the following issues: -