JEET SINGH ALIAS RANJIT SINGH Vs. BABOO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the Addl. District Judge whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was accepted thus decreeing the suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching upon the vacant land owned and possessed by them. The claim set up by the plaintiffs was contested by the defendant. Defendant in his written statement stated that plaintiffs are neither owner nor in possession of the suit property in dispute. It was further pleaded that the site in dispute belongs to one Surjan who sold it to the defendant vide sale deed dated 30. 3. 1970 and ever since then defendant is in possession of the site in dispute. Not only this, he has constructed a boundary wall, kitchen and stairs on the site in dispute in April, 1973 and that the suit is not maintainable in the present form.

(3.) RELIEF . Under issue No. 1, the court held that property in dispute was owned by Surjan Singh who had sold it to the defendant and so defendant is owner of the property in dispute whereas the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the same. Issues No. 2 and 3 were taken up together by the trial court. The trial court came to the conclusion that defendant is owner in possession of the suit property, so defendant cannot be said to have disobeyed interim injunction granted by the court. Resultantly, the suit of plaintiffs was dismissed. 4. The lower appellate court once again examined the matter in the light of evidence adduced by the parties. The lower appellate court on reconsidering the matter came to the conclusion that neither of the parties have been able to establish their title with respect to the property in dispute. According to learned Addl. District Judge, six sale deed (un-registered) produced by the plaintiffs, each for a sale consideration of Rs. 99.00, does not inspire confidence. Similarly, the Court came to the conclusion that sale deeds Exhibit D-1 is nothing but a mere paper transaction and same does not confer any title upon the defendant. As regards possession, court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs were put into possession way back in the year 1952 (when sale deeds Exhibit P-1 to Exhibit P-6 were executed though not admissible) but have been dispossessed three months prior to or even less than that from the filing of the suit. The court further held that since a person who has been dispossessed can bring a suit on the ground of his dispossession can ask for injunction, the appellate court accepted the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and so restrained the respondent from interfering in the possession of appellant-plaintiffs with respect to the property in dispute.