SARDARA SINGH Vs. DILBAGH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiff Sardara Singh alias Gurbakash Singh has filed the present R.S.A. and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.1979 passed by the Court of Shri K.R. Mahajan, Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1975 passed by Shri S.N. Aggarwal, Sub Judge, IInd Class, Hoshiarpur, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff Sardara Singh for possession.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Sardara Singh alias Gurbakash Singh filed a suit for possession for the land measuring 1 Marlas out of Khewat No. 119 Khatauni Nos. 335 and 336, Khasra Nos. 224 and 225/2 entered in Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 fully described in the head note of the plaint, situated in the area of village Jian, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, and the case set up by the plaintiff was that he and his brother Mohan Singh are the owners of the land in dispute and they had purchased it from Chain Singh son of Labh Singh and Ganga Singh son of Ram Singh vide registered sale deeds dated 25.1.1966 and 7.7.1965. Earlier, defendant Dilbagh Singh and Ganga Singh aforesaid were the co-sharers in equal shares of the land measuring 10 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 225 in which defendant Dilbagh Singh had 5 Marlas. The Government acquired 2 Marlas of land and in this manner the defendant remained the owner of 4 Marlas only. The plaintiff and his brother Mohan Singh are the owners of 4 Marlas out of Khasra No. 225 and 2 Marlas out of Khasra No. 224. Out of Khasra No. 224, the Government acquired 3/4 Marlas and the plaintiff remained the owner of 1-1/4 Marlas. In this manner the plaintiff and his brother Mohan Singh became the owners of 5-1/4 Marlas of land while the defendant remained the owner of 4 Marlas out of Khasra Nos. 224 and 225. However, defendant Dilbagh Singh encroached upon the suit land of the plaintiff and his brother took forcible possession of 1 Marla of land. The defendant was asked to vacate the illegal possession but he refused to do so. Hence the suit.

(3.) FROM the above pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-