RULDU SINGH Vs. NAGAR PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE UMARPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed by Ruldu Singh plaintiff-appellant for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 56 Kanals 2 Marlas as mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 1973-74 situated in the area of Village Umarpura, Tehsil Malerkotla and for permanent injunction to the effect that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing him and to take possession of the said land. That suit was decreed with costs by the learned Subordinate Judge, First Class, Malerkotla, vide his judgment and decree, dated February 14, 1978, granting both the reliefs.

(2.) NAGAR Panchayat (defendant) challenged that judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1978 before the District Judge, Sangrur. The appeal was partly allowed by the learned District Judge modifying the decree to the extent that the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that he is owner of the land in suit was dismissed and the decree for injunction was modified to the extent that the defendant shall not be dispossessed except in due course of law because by virtue of the fact that Ruldu Singh is in peaceful possession since the year 1963 and he has a right to protect that possession till he is dispossessed in due course of law. Parties were left to bear their own costs, vide his judgment and decree, dated October 31, 1979. However, Ruldu Singh plaintiff was not satisfied with the judgment and decree, dated October 31, 1979 of the first appellate Court and he has approached this Court in Regular Second Appeal.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant-Nagar Panchayat, denying the identity of the land and the fact that Mst. Bishni was in possession or that she was delivered the possession in consolidation proceedings. The relationship of Ruldu Singh with Mst. Bishni was also challenged. It was also challenged that plaintiff has succeeded to the property of Mst. Bishni. Claim of ownership by Ruldu Singh by adverse possession was also challenged. It was further pleaded that the defendant was owner of the land in suit. The defendant also challenged the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain and decide the suit. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.