SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-defendant is aggrieved of judgement and decree dtd. 24/4/2015, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mansa, as well as judgement and decree dtd. 11/7/2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mansa. Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that respondent-plaintiff-Ranjit Singh filed a suit for possession of land measuring 6 Kanals as detailed in the plaint. It was pleaded that Uttam Singh and Karnail Singh residents of Khara Tehsil and District Mansa were the owners in possession of land measuring 6 Kanals. Respondent- plaintiff purchased the said property vide sale deed dtd. 19/4/2011, therefore became owner in possession thereof. Mutation No. 4886 dated 1 of 5 30/4/2011 was sanctioned on the basis of the sale deed. Plaintiff started utilising the land by cultivating the same. However, after harvesting of Harri crop of 2011, all the four defendants including the present appellant took forcible possession of the land from him even though they had no concern with the suit property. They refused to handover the possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants resisted the suit while taking various preliminary objections. Averments on merits were controverted. It was pleaded that the present suit was filed by the plaintiff after filing of a civil suit by the appellant-defendant, titled as 'Sukhdev Singh Vs. Ranjit Singh on 24/6/2011. The appellant stated that two rooms stood constructed over the suit property by the appellant-Sukhdev Singh, who had spent a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs about 6 to 7 years ago. A Kinnu orchard over the suit property was stated to have been planted by the present appellant. Plaintiff as well as Uttam Singh and Baggu Singh never raised any objection thereto. Appellant, it was pleaded was in possession of the suit land since 13/4/1997. His possession was open, continuous, peaceful, uninterrupted and hostile qua the owners. Plaintiff-respondent was stated to be the son- in-law of Uttam Singh and merely sought to dispossess the appellant forcibly. Sale deed dtd. 19/4/2011 was alleged to be forged and fabricated. It is further stated that Karnail Singh and Uttam Singh were not the owners of the suit property after 13/4/2009. Sukhdev Singh was in possession thereof. Dismissal of the suit was prayed for.