SURINDER KUMAR Vs. MAKHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking condonation of 17 days delay in filing the appeal is allowed. The delay of 17 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 12/10/2017 passed by the Trial Court and judgment and decree dtd. 8/5/2019 passed by the First Appellate Court.

(3.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction averring that the suit property was owned and possessed by his grandfather who used to live with the plaintiff-respondent and after the death of the grandfather the plaintiff-respondent was in possession and using it for tethering cattle. There were two temporary cattle sheds and an open kitchen in the suit property which fell within the red line of the village and thus no revenue record thereof was available. As per the plaintiff-respondent the defendant-appellants were permanent residents of Nabha, and their ancestors had sold all the property including land in the village. The defendant-appellants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff-respondent from the suit property by claiming that it belonged to their forefathers though they had no right, title or interest therein. Hence, the present suit. The defendant-appellants contested the suit and in the written statement denied that the grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent was owner in possession of the suit property or that the suit property was in possession of the plaintiff-respondent. It was claimed that the suit property was their ancestral property where their predecessors used to reside. Parshotam Dass, father of defendant-appellant No.1, remained in possession of the suit property till his death and after him the defendant-appellants are in exclusive possession thereof. It was alleged that the suit had been filed only to grab the suit property. Replication was filed denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the plaint.