DAYA KISHAN Vs. CHANDER PATI ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, arising out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff -Chander Pati in respect of house No. 6/62 shown in letters ABCD. The plaintiff has sought injunction against the defendant to restrain him from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the portion marked as EFGH.

(2.) THE plaintiff alleges to have purchased the land measuring 135 square yards underneath the house in question from one Ram Ditta Mal vide sale deed dated 3.9.1969. The Department of Custodian conducted an open auction on 5.12.1964 and Ram Ditta Mal was the successful bidder. A sale certificate was also issued in favour of Ram Ditta Mal. The plaintiff alleges to have made alterations and additions in the year 1973 after getting the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee on 17.12.1973.

(3.) THE present appellant -defendant in his written statement asserted that the plaintiff is neither owner of the portion ABCD nor EFGH. He is owner and in possession of the portion EFGH. Ram Ditta Mal has purchased only 100 square yards, whereas in sale certificate, land purchased has been shown as 135 square yards. The portion EFGH is not part of the land purchased by Ram Ditta Mal. It was also asserted that the house was purchased by Chander Bhan, husband of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is only Benamidar. It was asserted that he is in possession of the suit property since 1961, which is exclusive, open and hostile as owner of the portion EFGH for the last more than 12 years and, thus, he has become owner of the same by adverse possession.