DARBARA SINGH Vs. NIHAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal filed by defendant No. 1 in this suit challenging the concurrent findings, judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby decree for possession of the land measuring 68 kanals 1 marla was passed in favour of plaintiff-Nihal Kaur.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that plaintiff-Nihal Kaur, who is the mother of the defendant No. 1, filed this suit for possession of land measuring 68 kanals 1 marla; as fully described in the head note of the plaint. It was claimed that the plaintiff had become the owner in possession of the land in question by way of decree dated 28.08.1985. It was further claimed that the decree had emerged from a family settlement. After the decree, the plaintiff had become the owner in possession of the suit land. However, since she was residing at another village, therefore, she permitted her son, defendant No. 1, to cultivate the suit land. It was further pleaded that after the harvesting of the previous crop the plaintiff requested her son, defendant No. 1, to hand over the possession of the suit land to her, but the defendant No. 1 and his sons did not agree. The possession of defendants over the suit land is illegal and is of a trespasser. Therefore, it was claimed that the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the suit land back from defendant No. 1 and his sons.

(3.) On notice, defendant No. 1 appeared and filed written statement. Besides taking routine preliminary objections, defendant No. 1 claimed that the defendants are in continuous and hostile possession of the suit land. Therefore, the defendants have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff herself has never cultivated the suit land. Still further, it was claimed that the possession of defendant No. 1 is not illegal nor is the same as a trespasser. Still further, the ownership of the plaintiff was denied. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff never asked to vacate the suit land, therefore, she has no cause of action. Defendants No. 2 and 3 though filed written statement but got themselves proceeded ex parte, and they chose not to contest the suit.