INDERJIT Vs. KAPUR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal, at the instance of the appellant-defendant, is directed against the concurrent findings of fact, whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff claiming declaration to be owner of Plot No.10, situated in Village Badali, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar with consequential relief of possession, has been decreed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff Kapur Mal son of Babu Ram sought the relief, aforementioned, in Civil Suit of 1984 on the premise that his forefathers, namely, Babu Ram, Arjan Dass and Nathu Ram were the original residents of Village Kailar, now Sector 24, Chandigarh and were evicted by the State Government. In lieu of the eviction, were allotted plots at Village Badali, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar bearing No.15/1 and 3/2. One Jai Kishan and Diya Ram were also allotted plots at Village Badali, but as they shifted to Manimajra, their allotment was cancelled and the plots allotted to them were re-allotted to Basant Singh and Sham Singh sons of Partap Singh. Plaintiff for his convenience, exchanged plot No.15/1 with Bachna Ram for plot No.3 in mutual agreement and also gave the possession. Plots of all the allottees were scattered all over and it was not convenient for any of the allottee barring few to use them usefully. Basant Singh and Sham Singh submitted an application to the Land Acquisition Officer, Chandigarh for transferring of plots No.10 and 1/5 with plot Nos.3, 3/2, 3/1 since plot Nos.3 and 3/2 belonged to the plaintiff and plot No. 3/1 to one Banarsi Dass. The aforementioned exchange agreement was signed by the defendant as the representative of the allottees, which was allowed. As a result thereof, Basant Singh and Sham Singh were given plots No.3, 3/1 and 3/2 and plot No.10 and 1/5 came to the share of the plaintiff. Plot No.1/5 was sold by the plaintiff to Charan Singh son of Jagir Singh and plot No.10 remained unoccupied.

(3.) It was further pleaded that the plaintiff continued to reside at Basanti Devi Mandir, Sector 24, Chandigarh and by taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from Village Badali, defendant tried to take forcible possession of plot No.10 in 1980, which was timely intervened and in this regard was constrained to sought injunction against the defendant, but during the pendency of the suit, the defendant had taken forcible possession of plot bearing No.10 and constructed a poultry shed temporarily over the suit land and in this background, the aforementioned relief was claimed.