UJAGAR SINGH Vs. SHIVRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1980 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jullundur, who allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and set aside the judgment and decree dated 23.7.1976 passed by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Nawanshehar, District Jullundur, and the first appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs (L.Rs. of original plaintiff Harbans Singh) and granted a decree with costs throughout, for possession of the land measuring 12 marlas bearing khewat No. 292, Khatauni No. 468 and Khasra No. 2430 as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 situated in the area of Nawanshehar. The defendants-appellants were allowed a period of four months to remove their Geri and Toka Machine and Malba of the construction as shown in red colour in the site plain (Exhibit P-2) prepared at the instance of the plaintiffs-respondents.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Harbans Singh deceased filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 12 Marlas bearing Khewat No. 292, Khatauni No. 468 and Khasra No. 2430 as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 situated in the area of Nawanshehar, with a consequential relief to the effect that the decree for mandatory injunction be passed in his favour and against defendant Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. Ujagar Singh, Mohinder Singh, Harpal Singh, Jagtar Singh and Charan Singh, direction them to remove the Geri and Toka Machine and the construction shown in red colour in the site plan (Exhibit P-2) and restore the plot in its original condition to the plaintiff.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants, who denied that the plaintiff was the owner of the site in dispute. It was averred by them that they had purchased this site from the Rehabilitation Authorities of the Central Government in the year 1965 and were in possession of the same since then. The suit was also contested on various grounds such as that the defendants had become the owners of the site in dispute and the plaintiff was estopped by his acts and conduct from filing the suit; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit; that the suit was not within time and the same was not properly valued for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction; that the suit was liable to be stayed till the decision of the revision, before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi.