LILA RAM Vs. MOHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent filed by Lila Ram is directed against the judgment of learned Chief Justice By which he accepted the regular second appeal of Mehar Chand and other respondents set aside the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Delhi, and restored those of the trial Court dismissing the suit for possession of land brought by Lila Ram appellant.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant brought the present suit for possession of 1,893 square yards of land, situated in Mubarakpur Kotla, on the allegation that the same formed part of an area of 6 bighas and 8 biswas included in Khasra No. 525/283 of which the plaintiff was the owner by means of a registered deed of gift dated the 3rd of July 1947 in his favour from the previous owner Durga, defendant No. 8. The suit was instituted on 27th of January 1954. According to the plaintiff, Mehar Chand and other respondents had encroached upon the land in dispute about nine years before the institution of the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by Mehar Chand and other respondents who alleged that they had been in possession of the land in suit since about 1921. According to them they had built a boundary wall round the area of land including the land in dispute since a long time and had also sunk a well and constructed certain buildings thereon. They further alleged that in 1934 one Dal Singh instituted a suit against them for possession of 4 bighas and 4 biswas of land including the land in dispute by claiming that the same formed part of Khasra No, 290. A decree was awarded in favour of Dal Singh in that suit but he gave up his rights in the decree and allowed the contesting respondents to retain possession of the same on their making payment of Rs 800 to him. Sometime later it was realised by the Revenue authorities that the land in dispute was really part of Khasra No. 525/283 and not Khasra No. 290. The respondents thus claimed to be the owners of the land in dispute by adverse possession for more than 12 years. (3-A) Following issues were framed;-