GURTEJ SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS had filed a suit for possession. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendants No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 12.5.2009. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No. 1 and 2

(2.) THE facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:-

(3.) DEFENDANTS No. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement took preliminary objections that the suit is not properly valued; that the suit is time barred and that the defendants are in adverse possession of the house/property in dispute which has matured into ownership. On merits, they have admitted that originally Partap Singh, Mithu Singh, Ajaib Singh and Kaur Singh were owners of the suit property. They have denied that the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 5 have inherited the property in dispute after the death of Partap Singh, Rather it has been stated by them that they are owners in possession of the same. Actually, Kartar Singh father of answering defendants purchased two adjacent plots vide Bahi entries i.e. 1 Kanal 0 Marla from Veer Kaur, Ajaib Singh and Kaur Singh for Rs. 1500/- vide writing dated 25.3.1961 and one vacant plot measuring 0 Kanala 7 Marlas 6 Sarsahis for Rs. 275/- vide writing dated 21.6.1962 and constructed a house on the said plots and after his death answering defendants have inherited him. Their possession is open, hostile, continuous for the last more than 12 years and as such they have become owner of the same by adverse possession. They have also stated that earlier a suit for declaration of their ownership on the basis of purchase was filed by them which was partly decreed to the extent that they are in possession of the said house. Plea of adverse possession was not considered in that case. Rest of the contentions made in the plaint have been denied." 3.On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:-