SURESH CHANDER Vs. BHULA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below. The plaintiff-appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 7/1/1991 passed by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Hansi, as well as the judgment and decree dtd. 15/9/1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant and the first appeal preferred against dismissal of suit were dismissed.

(2.) The simple case of plaintiff was that he along with proforma defendants No.2 and 3 had purchased one kanal land measuring 18 karam x 10 karam comprised in Khasra No. 928/1-2 min in Mauja Hansi from one Sher Singh vide sale-deed dtd. 9/10/1979 registered on 12/10/1979 marked as ABCD in the site plan. That defendant No. 1 had tried to take forcible possession of suit land without any right over the same and had threatened him to raise construction over the same, despite repeated requests made by plaintiff not to interfere in his ownership and possession. He accordingly sought permanent injunction against defendant No. 1.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 filed a detailed written statement taking number of preliminary objections regarding estoppel, suit being barred by own act and conduct, plaintiff having not approached the Court with clean hands, maintainability, suit being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, limitation and suit not been verified in accordance with law. Defendant No. 1 claimed ownership of the plot in dispute by way of adverse possession. He asserted that the suit land falls in Khasra Nos. 927 and 928, with Khasra No. 928 lying to the east of Khasra No. 927. It was stated that defendant No. 1 is the owner and in possession of Khasra No. 927, which is bounded by the house of Suraj Bhan, the house of Ram Kishan, Khasra No. 928, and a street. The defendant further asserted that the plaintiff and proforma defendants have no concern with the plot comprised in Khasra No. 927. He claimed that a vacant plot measuring 53 feet x 52/53 feet lies on the eastern side of Khasra No. 927 and that he has been in possession of the said land since 1958. Defendant No. 1 also stated that he had constructed a wall on the eastern side of the plot, though the wall has since fallen. According to the defendant, both the plots were amalgamated into one. It was further claimed that the house of Suraj Bhan falls within Khasra No. 927 and a portion of his house lies in Khasra No. 928. Defendant No. 1 alleged that Suraj Bhan purchased some portion of the land from him for construction of a house and also acquired some portion of Khasra No. 928. Defendant No. 1 further alleged that Ram Kishan had taken unauthorized possession of some land owned by the defendant, which led to the demarcation of the land. He denied that the plaintiff or proforma defendants are in possession of the suit property in any capacity. The defendant further claimed to have purchased 5 kanals and 13 marlas of land from Narain Singh, comprised in Khasra No. 927, vide registered sale deed dtd. 2/12/1958. He stated that most of this land has been disposed of and houses have been constructed thereon. Defendant No. 1 claimed continuous, uninterrupted possession over land measuring approximately 53.8 feet by 49 feet and asserted ownership by way of adverse possession. He further contended that the sale deed dtd. 12/10/1979, relied upon by the plaintiff, is illegal and has no effect on the rights of the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.