SURINDERJIT SINGH Vs. JAGJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil Revision No. 43 of 1997 (Surinderjit Singh v. Jagjit Kaur) and Civil Revision No. 44 of 1997 (Surinderjit Singh v. Jagjit Kaur) as these arise out of the same civil suit (No. 852, dated 7th November, 1990) pending in appeal before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar. Civil Revision No. 43 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant Surinderjit Singh against the order dated 2nd December, 1996, passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, for leading additional evidence was allowed. Civil Revision No. 44 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant Surinderjit Singh against the order dated 2nd December, 1996, passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby his application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

(2.) NECESSARY facts to decide these revision petitions are as under:a suit was filed by plaintiff/respondent Jagjit Kaur against defendant/petitioner Surinderjit Singh for possession of the house in dispute on the ground that the same was previously owned and possessed by Lachhman Singh son of Ram Singh resident of village Nangal, who sold the same to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 28th February, 1963 for a consideration of Rs. 800/ -. After the purchase of the property, the plaintiff raised construction in the same. Defendant Surinderjit Singh, who is the son of the plaintiff, forcibly took possession of the suit property from the plaintiff and turned her out about three months prior to the filing of the suit.

(3.) ON merits, it was denied that the suit property was previously owned and possessed by Lachman Singh son of Ram Singh. It was stated that the said Lachman Singh had got no right, title or interest in the suit property. It was denied that Lachman Singh had sold the suit property to the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 28th January, 1963 and that the said sale deed is a forged and fabricated document. It was further staled that the suit property was previously lying as a 'taur' (vacant plot) and about 25 years back defendant took possession of the same. Thereafter, the defendant raised construction on the suit property. It was averred that the defendant is in possession of the suit property for the last more than 12 years and, therefore, has become owner of the same by way of adverse possession.