ROSHAN LAL SINGLA Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff -respondent for possession of the suit land after removal of the construction raised thereon and further restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, has been decreed.

(2.) BRIEF averments contained in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the hissedar co -sharer in the suit property measuring 1 kanal 8 marlas to the extent of 22/28 share, situated within the revenue limits of village Nangal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib. He purchased the aforesaid land from the previous hissedar/co -sharer in possession Smt. Durga Devi by virtue of registered sale deed dated 6.7.1983 and another sale deed dated 2.11.1995 executed by her for a valuable consideration in favour of the plaintiff and mutation was also sanctioned in his favour. It is further averred that he remained in hissedari possession of the land in suit as hissedar/co -sharer when the defendant in the month of May, 1998 illegally and forcibly dispossessed him from part of the suit land measuring OK -3M being its North -East part by way of raising unauthorized construction in the form of boundary wall and he is still in possession of the remaining land in suit as its hissedar/co -sharer. The defendant has absolutely no right, title or interest whatever in the land in suit. He is claiming himself as hissedar/co -sharer in respect of the land of adjoining khasra No. 445 and on that basis he took law into his hands in the first week of May, 1998 and forcibly dispossessed him from the land measuring 3 marlas. He further dispossessed him from the land measuring 0K -1M -6 Sarsahi out of the suit property illegally during the pendency of the suit in the month of March, 2000 and thus, he is a trespasser and unauthorized occupant of the land measuring 0K -4M -6 Sarsahi forming North -East part of the suit property over which he has got no right, title or interest. He has been requested many a time to vacate the unlawful possession but he declined, hence the suit.

(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: