GURMAIL SINGH Vs. AMARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this judgment, I shall be disposing of two appeals bearing RSA No.5813 of 2014 and RSA No.5563 of 2014 which are connected. One appeal is arising out of the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff- appellant Gurmail Singh whereas other appeal is filed by the same Gurmail Singh against a judgment in a suit for injunction. Learned trial Court decreed both the suits filed by the plaintiff whereas First Appellate Court has reversed the judgment in both the cases.

(2.) Plaintiff claiming to be owner of 10 marla property comprised in Khewat No.115, Khatoni No.153, Khasra No.2624/11912 situated at Adda Kathar, Adda Kathar-Manko Road, Tehsil and District Jalandhar (Pb.) claimed possession by asserting that the defendant was inducted as a tenant and tenancy was terminated by notice dtd. 5/8/2009 but the defendant has failed to vacate. In the written statement, the defendant- respondent contested the suit by pleading that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. It was pleaded that Charan Singh, Nagina Singh and Pritam Singh predecessors of the defendant-respondent had purchased the property from forefathers of the plaintiff and they are in continuous possession thereof since 1950. In alternative, the defendant claimed that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession.

(3.) Both the Courts have found that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case with regard to tenancy. However, learned trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the defendant has failed to prove that the property was purchased by his ancestors from the ancestors of plaintiff. It will be significant to note that an unregistered sale deed for a sale consideration of Rs.50.00 has been produced on file as Ex.D-1/A dtd. 19/2/1947. In order to prove this sale deed, since Dhana Singh-marginal witness had died, Resham Singh, his son was examined who identified thumb impression of Dhana Singh on the sale deed. He also stated that his father had told him about the sale transaction.