RURA MAL Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In nutshell, facts of the case are that plaintiff - Rura Mal son of Rattan Chand, resident of village Bamial, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, now District Pathankot, had brought a suit against the defendants i.e. Karnail Singh son of Kharkoo and his sons, namely, Swaran Singh, Janak Singh, Narain Singh and Yash Pal Singh, all residents of the same village seeking possession of land measuring 0 kanal 12 marlas comprised in khasra No.49-R/9/2/2 after removal of every sort of malba besides craving for grant of permanent injunction, as a consequential relief, restraining the defendants No.1 to 5 from raising further construction at the site so as to change its existing position.

(2.) As per the version of the plaintiff, he is owner of the suit land as is evident from copy of jamabandi for the year 1989-1990 attached with the plaint; defendant No.1 is having no concern with the suit property but he has illegally and unauthorisedly encroached upon an area of land measuring 0 kanal 12 marlas out of khasra No.49-R/9/2/2 belonging to the plaintiff and in the recent past has raised construction of a shop illegally without any right, title or interest; the plaintiff had got the land demarcated and the Local Commissioner found illegal and unauthorised possession over a piece of land measuring 0 kanal 12 marlas comprised in khasra No.49- R/9/2/2. The plaintiff requested the defendants several times to remove the illegal structure raised by them and to deliver the vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff but to no effect. As such, the plaintiff filed a suit, which was assigned to the Court of Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Pathankot.

(3.) On getting notice, all the defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement contesting the suit, inter alia raising preliminary objections contending that the suit was not maintainable in the present form; that the suit was time barred; that the act and conduct of plaintiff estopped him from filing the suit; that suit was bad for non-joinder of defendant No.2 to 5; that the defendants had become owners of the suit land being in adverse possession thereof for more than 12 years and that the suit had not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, all the defendants denied ownership of the plaintiff over the suit land or defendants having encroached upon any part of khasra No.49- R/9/2/2 or having raised construction of shop over there. According to the defendants, the alleged demarcation report dated 14.6.1994 is incorrect, vague and the same is not as per High Court Rules and Orders and instructions issued by Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab; that as a matter of fact the defendant No.1 owns land adjoining to the suit land and is in possession of the same since last many years as owner in possession thereof; the plaintiff has no concern with the same; even if it is proved that the land under possession of defendants is owned by the plaintiff, in that case defendant No.1 has become owner thereof by way of adverse possession being more than 12 years old, continuous, hostile, open, notorious and to the knowledge of all concerned including the plaintiff, as such the defendant No.1 has become owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Refuting the remaining assertions in the plaint, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.