CHANDAN Vs. LAKHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal arises from the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-respondent for possession of plot No. 1632 measuring 0 kanal 9 marlas has been ordered to be decreed. The suit filed by the plaintiff was based on the following facts.

(2.) THE consolidation of holdings is stated to have taken place in village Bapora in the year 1962-63. It was claimed that during consolidation the plaintiff was allotted plot No. 1632, but he was wrongly delivered possession of plot No. 1638 instead of plot No. 1632. The plot allotted to the plaintiff is said to have remained in possession of the defendant. It was further claimed that the plaintiff constructed a boundary wall on plot No. 1638 and subsequently the plaintiff came to know that plot No. 1638 was in fact allotted to defendant. The Gram Panchayat was called which constituted the members of the Gram Panchayat as well as respectables of the village Bapora and Resolution No. 4 was passed on 6.2.1977, according to which plot No. 1632 was given to the plaintiff and possession of plot No. 1638 was given to the defendant. It was further claimed that plaintiff remained in possession of plot No. 1632 for a period of four months. Thereafter some of the villagers poisoned the ears of the defendant and got instituted a suit for permanent injunction. In the said suit, trial court held that defendant Chandan was owner in possession of plot No. 1632. Moreover, it was also observed that since plot No. 1638 was also given to Chandan, defendant during consolidation of holdings, so he was also declared owner of the same.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant and it was pleaded that the suit is not maintainable and that the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata. He claimed that plot No. 1632 was given to him by Panna Chohan of village Bapora, because defendant is a cobbler and he had been serving the people of Panana Chohan. It was claimed that he got the plot about 16/17 years back and since then he has been holding it as an owner in possession of the same. It was further claimed that he also remained in possession of plot No. 1638 and the plaintiff was never in possession of that plot which was allotted to the defendant during consolidation. The allegation of compromise or settlement by the Panchayat was also denied.