RAM MURTI Vs. SHIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal representatives of the plaintiff-Ram Murti are in Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dtd. 1/12/1988 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala (hereinafter to be referred as 'First Appellate Court'), whereby an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dtd. 17/8/1988 passed by the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Rajpura (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial Court'), decreeing the suit for declaration as well as permanent injunction, filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff, was allowed, resultantly dismissing the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff.

(3.) Briefly stating, the appellant-plaintiff/Ram Murti (since deceased), who happened to be the nephew of respondent-defendant, filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner in possession of 1/3rd share of 06 biswas of land falling in Khewat Khatoni No. 37/142 Khasra No. 1166 / 1040 / 285 (2-17), situated in the revenue limits of Village Barahman Majra, Tehsil Fatehgarh Sahib (now district). It was pleaded that the above mentioned 06 biswas land was purchased vide registered sale deed dtd. 16/3/1959 from Amir Chand against sale consideration of Rs.1000.00 with 2/3rd share recorded in the name of the father of appellant, whereas 1/3rd share was registered in the name of respondent-defendant, though the entre sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff from his own pocket. It was further pleaded that the father of appellant-plaintiff raised construction of residential house over the property in question about 24-25 years back and the respondent-defendant despite been aware of the same never raised any objection being fully conversant with the fact that he was only a Benamindar and in fact, the appellant-plaintiff was the real owner. In the alternate, it was further pleaded that the father of appellant had raised residential house 24-25 years back; with complete knowledge and notice of this fact to the respondent-defendant, the appellant-plaintiff even acquired ownership by way of adverse possession. Finally, it was pleaded that the respondent-defendant been intending to dispossess the appellant-plaintiff from the suit property in question, the suit was filed.