DARSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. CHARAN DASS SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - C.M. No. 10145-C of 2013 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 46 days in re-filing the appeal.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the appellants that the appellants-defendants purchased the house adjoining to the house of the respondent-plaintiff on 16.12.1992, which was constructed. The wall was not constructed by the appellants-defendants and since then, they are staying in the said house. The respondent-plaintiff was aware of this fact and did not file any proceedings prior to the present suit, which was filed on 26.06.2002. He contends that the mandatory injunction, which has been sought by the respondent-plaintiff, cannot be granted as the said suit has been initiated by the respondent-plaintiff after a period of three years from the date of knowledge when the appellants-defendants have entered into the possession of the property. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Krothapalli Satyanarayana Vs. Koganti Ramaiah and others, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 452 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of A.V.N. Prasad Vs. Sita Bai Raj Purohit, 2007 (5) RCR (Civil) 235.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants but cannot accept the same for the simple reason that the suit is for possession of the land and the mandatory injunction has been prayed as a consequence thereof. The appellants-defendants cannot assert that they are having an adverse possession on the property in question as the required period has not elapsed prior to the initiation of the proceedings before the trial Court. The judgments, on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellants, thus, would not be applicable to the case in hand. The findings recorded by the Courts below are clear and specific based upon the evidence, which has been led by the parties.