SWARAN SINGH Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties to this contempt petition are real brothers. Petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for declaration to the effect that he was the sole owner in possession of the land measuring 104 Kanals 19 Marlas situated in village Arli, Bhan, Tehsil Batala as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 and that they had no right to interfere in his peaceful possession over the said land. This land included the land comprised in Rect. No. 48, Killa No. 3. Suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated October 16, 1986. Petitioner was held to be the owner and in continuous possession of the suit land since 1961, Respondents were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit land. Will executed by Teja Singh father of the parties in respect of this land in favour of the respondents was rejected by the trial Court. Appeal there against filed by the defendant-respondent was allowed by learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated August, 19, 1988. It has held by the appellate Court that the petitioner was not the exclusive owner of the land in dispute on the basis of family settlement or by way of adverse possession. It was further held that the petitioner was entitled to succeed to the land in dispute which forms part of the estate of Teja Singh to the extent of one-third. A reading of the judgment of the appellate court goes to show that the learned Additional District Judge nowhere recorded a finding that the petitioner was not in possession of the land measuring 104 Kanals 19 Marlas though he did record that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was the owner by way of adverse possession.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court, petitioner filed Regular Second Appeal 2948 of 1988 which was admitted to a regular hearing on April 28, 1989 when the respondents were restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute.

(3.) AFTER the receipt of the report, the matter was taken up for hearing. Petitioner, who appeared in person and Mr. D.S. Chanan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents were heard.