GUNIT SIDHU Vs. BHAI SHAMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 30. 11. 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, bathinda (hereinafter described as 'the First appellate Court')' whereby the appeal of the legal representatives of the plaintiff-Bhai shaminder Singh (since deceased) was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 20. 2. 2003 of the-Civil Judge (Senior Division), bathinda (referred to hereinafter as 'the trial Court) were set aside.

(2.) A suit for permanent injunction was filed by Bhai Shaminder Singh for permanent injunction seeking to restrain Bhai amrinder Singh (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs, who have preferred the instant appeal) from interfering in his peaceful possession over the land in dispute. It was pleaded that he was exclusive owner and in possession of the suit land.

(3.) THE claim of Shaminder Singh was resisted by Amrinder Singh and it was pleaded that the former was not lawful owner and in peaceful possession of the land measuring 61 kanals 6 marlas. Further qualifying his defence, Amrinder Singh averred that shaminder Singh was real brother of his father-Bhai Mohinder Singh and one Bhai birinder Singh. It was further averred that all these three brothers were joint in mess and were owners in possession of various properties. A family settlement was stated to have been effected in the year 1977 and therein, an area of 184 kanals which was a sanctioned garden, was divided amongst the three brothers equally. Sixty one kanals six marlas six sarsahi came to the share of Bhai mohinder Singh out of khasra No. 40//26 and thereafter, he continued to be in physical possession of this land. After the demise of Bhai Mohinder Singh, Amrinder Singh claimed that he entered the peaceful possession of the said land. To demonstrate his possession, records of the Canal Department since Kharif, 1977 to date was adverted to. The parties went to trial on the following issues: -1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed land?opp 1-A. Whether cause of action survives in favour of applicants Surinder Kaur and manvinder Singh, LRs of deceased plaintiff?popp (Framed on 4. 10. 2002)1-B. Whether the defendant has made any unauthorised amendment or assertion in the amended written statement, if so, its effect?opp (Framed on 2. 1. 2003)2. Whether defendant has got land measuring 61 kanals 6 marlas 6 Sarsahi in a family settlement as alleged/opd 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?opp 4. Whether defendant has become owner of land measuring 61 kanals 6 marlas 6 sarsahi by way of adverse possession in the alternative?opd 5. Whether plaintiff does not have locus standi to file the suit?opd 6. Relief.