RANJAN Vs. KISHORI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 13.9.1996 of the learned Trial Court which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated 13.2.1998, giving rise to the present regular second appeal. The plaintiff Kishan Lal and another had filed a suit for mandatory injunction that they are co-owners of the property in dispute and the defendants have no interest in the said property. It was further averred that nearly six months back the defendants had forcibly occupied the property in dispute and has raised some kacha and pucca construction thereupon. They claimed the possession alongwith other co-owners and also a direction for demolition. According to the plaintiffs, they had purchased the said property vide registered sale deed dated 7.3.1956. The suit was contested by the defendants alleging that they have become the owners in possession by way of adverse possession and they are in possession since 15.3.1964. Their possession over the property in dispute is open, continuous, hostile and uninterrupted and as such the suit ought to have been dismissed. The learned trial court had dismissed the suit. The learned appellate court concurring with the findings of facts and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants vide judgment dated 13.2.1998. It will be appropriate to refer to the finding arrived at by the learned first appellate court on the material issue as under:-

(2.) In the facts and circumstances of the case certainly even if the version of the appellants was believed, they ought to have asked for the relief of possession, which certainly was neither asked nor amended subsequently. The conduct of the appellants seen in the light of the evidence led on record that the defendants were in possession of the suit property for a considerable period., the whole suit of the appellants was liable to be dismissed and it has so been rightly dismissed by the learned courts below.

(3.) I find not merit in this regular second appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed in limine. However, there shall be no order as to costs.