LAWS(P&H)-2019-8-266

PARTAP SINGH Vs. SURESH

Decided On August 26, 2019
PARTAP SINGH Appellant
V/S
SURESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was partly allowed by the trial Court to the following effect:-

(2.) The appeal preferred by unsuccessful defendants No.l and 2 (appellants herein) did not find favour with the Additional District Judge, Rewari. However, cross objections preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs were disposed of with the findings that their possession over the suit property is protected under Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short 'the Act1). The judgment and decree under appeal are modified only to the extent that possession of the plaintiffs is protected under Sec. 53-A of the Act and the defendants are restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit property.

(3.) The facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that respondents/plaintiffs staked their claim to the suit property on the allegations that one Mool Chand was owner of the suit property which was in possession of Chhuttan Lal, grandfather of plaintiffs No.l and 2 and father in law of plaintiff No.3, as gair marusi. On 27/6/1963, Mool Chand sold the suit property in favour of Chhuttan Lal for sale consideration of Rs.400.00 and since then Chhuttan Lal became owner in possession of the suit property. Later, he raised construction of residential house thereon. Electricity connection bearing 2d-485 was obtained in the name of plaintiff No.l and water connection was also obtained. Babu Lal son of Chhuttan Lal got issued licence of rickshaw puller from Market Committee, Rewari on 25/3/1975. The plaintiffs have their ration cards and voter list at this address. The defendants allege that they have purchased the suit property from Jagdish alleged to be adopted son of said Mool Chand. In the column of cultivation, Chhuttan Lal has been shown to be gair marusi tenant. Defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property qua which they have no right, title or concern. Hence the suit.