DROPDI Vs. KANHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute between the parties pertains to a residential plot comprised of 6 marlas area towards the south-east portion of khasra no.1566 and 2 marlas area towards the north-east portion of khasra no.1567. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the plot vide registered sale-deed dated 24.6.1981 for Rs.2500/- from Girraj Singh and Hari Raj Singh sons of Raghubir Singh. She also alleged that, infact, she had been in its continuous, open, and peaceful possession, for the last 13 years, to the knowledge of all. She had paid part of its sale-price also, to the vendors, long back. But, as she was poor, the execution of sale-deed was postponed, and it was agreed that sale-deed would be executed when she was in a position to pay the remaining sale-price. She constructed one chhapper and a room on this plot. On 26.7.1981, the defendants came to her house and wanted to disturb her peaceful possession thereof. They beat her son, and a case was got registered by her, in this regard. Even thereafter, they did not desist from interfering with her possession. Therefore, she filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her possession over the property indicated as ABCD in the site plan, Ex.PW3/2, attached with the plaint. The defendants denied plaintiff's ownership as well as possession over the house. According to them, the disputed plot measures 14 marlas and is owned as well as possessed by them. It is a part of northern-eastern portion of khasra no.1566. After having purchased it vide registered sale-deed dated 2.5.1978 for Rs.2500/-, they have constructed a chhapper, one room, and a cattle shed thereon. They have been residing in it, from the very beginning. Locusstandi of the plaintiff to file the suit was challenged and so was its maintainability in the form it was filed. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had no cause of action.

(2.) Trial was conducted in respect of the following issues:-

(3.) The trial court found merit in the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court, however, did not agree with the verdict. It accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. This is now regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the verdict of the first appellate court.