PANNI LAL Vs. MED SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will also dispose of R.S.A. No. 1477 of 1978 (Med Singh v. Panni Lal, as both these appeals are directed against the same judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge with Enhanced Appellate Powers, Gurgaon, dated the 10th March, 1978.

(2.) The plaintiff Panni Lal, claiming himself to be the owner of the site in dispute measuring 6083 square feet comprised of Khasra Nos. 1825, 1826, and 1827 sought the relief of possession in respect thereof alleging inter alia that the same had been encroached upon by the defendant, who is owner of the adjoining fields comprised of Khasra Nos. 1822 and 1821. He also pleaded that 17 fruits trees standing in that site in dispute belong to him. In the written statement the defendant pleaded that the land in dispute as well as the fruit trees planted thereon by his uncle some 30 years back belong to him and that the land never remained in the occupation of the plaintiff of his predecessor-in-interest. Plea was also taken that the suit was barred by time and the defendant has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. The trial Court found that the plaintiff has been proved to be the owner of the land in dispute but not of the trees as the same were planted by the precessor-in-interest of the defendant. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was decreed for possession of the suit land but the defendant was held to be entitled to take away the trees from the suit land for which one month's time was allowed to remove the trees. Dissatisfied with the same both the parties fields two separate appeals. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed by it. Dissatisfied with the same, both the parties have filed these two appeals. R.S.A. No. 438 of 1978 has been filed by these two appeals. R.S.A.No. 1477 of 1978 has been filed by Med Singh defendant.

(3.) The main dispute between the parties in these appeals is whether the trees on the land which have been found to be in the ownership of the plaintiff and were planted by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant, belong to the plaintiff or not. In other words, whether the defendant is entitled to remove the trees from the suit land which has been found to be in the ownership of the plaintiff.