KANHI RAM Vs. BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned therein, the applications seeking condonation of 101 days delay in refiling the appeal and condonation of 51 days delay in filing the appeal are allowed. The delay of 101 days delay in refiling the appeal and the delay of 51 days delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 (defendant-appellants) challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 24/10/2013 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dtd. 20/12/2017 passed by the First Appellate Court.

(3.) Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction. It was averred that Jagan Nath Vyas, and his son Shankar Lal Vyas were biswedars and owners of the entire land of village Shimli and had given their agricultural land to various persons for cultivation and the land within abadi to various persons for residential purposes. It was further averred that the forefathers of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 were given land comprised in Khasra No.254/212/3 for residential purpose which during consolidation was alloted Khasra No.57. The ancestors of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 had constructed a house over some portion of the suit land while the open land was used for tethering cattle. It was averred that the defendants had, in collusion with the revenue officials, got their names recorded against 3 marlas of the suit land and had also constructed a wall and installed a gate to which they had no right. Hence, the suit. In the written statement the defendants raised preliminary objections of maintainability, locus standi, valuation and limitation. On merits it was that denied that Shankar Lal Vyas or his ancestors owned the entire land of village Shimli or had given their agricultural land to various persons for cultivation and the land within abadi to various persons for residential purposes. It was denied that the suit land was given to the ancestors of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 or that they were in possession. According to the defendants the suit land adjoined their own property and the defendants had been using the 3 marlas for approaching the main Rasta. According to the defendants in 1971 the entry in their favour in the revenue record was made after a site visit by the Patwari. Ownership of the suit land by way of adverse possession was claimed by the defendants. Replication was filed denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterating those made in the plaint.