BALDEV SINGH Vs. KEWAL SINGH VIRDI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 30.8.2007 and 13.1.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala (referred to hereinafter as 'the trial Court') and the District Judge, Kapurthala (hereinafter described as 'the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit of the plaintiff -respondent No. 1 was decreed and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed a suit for possession against Darshan Singh and Smt. Swaran Kaur, the parents of the appellant and proforma respondents herein, pleading therein that he had purchased the plot in dispute from one Ramesh Kumar son of Sant Kumar for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8000/ - vide registered sale deed dated 4.4.1973.

(3.) UPON notice, Darshan Singh and Smt. Swaran Kaur appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. It was pleaded that they had become owners in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of adverse, hostile and long possession since June, 1983 and that the construction has been raised thereon after spending a huge amount, i.e., Rs. ten lacs; that nine rooms, one big hall, one kitchen,one verandah, porch, five toilets and stairs have been constructed in the plot in dispute; that this construction was to the knowledge of the attorney of respondent No. 1, but he never raised any objection to it; that they had raised construction over plot Nos. 61 and 62 at one and the same time during the year 1983 -84 and boundary wall around these plots was raised in June, 1983; that one room was constructed initially in plot No. 61 for storing building material for raising construction in plot in dispute as well as in plot No. 62; that thereafter, water connection was obtained from the Municipal Committee in the plot in dispute and the electrical connection was also installed in their names therein; and that after raising construction in the plot in dispute, the building was given on lease to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rural Development and various other tenants from time to time. On the basis of these pleadings, it was averred that respondent No. 1 had no concern with the plot in dispute. The suit was stated to be time barred. They had also alleged that the suit was not maintainable as it was not filed by an authorised person.