ATTAR CHAND Vs. GOVERNMENT COLLEGE GOHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is directed against the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of the suit land comprised in old khasra No.1703 measuring 0-2 biswas, new Killa No.1253 measuring 0-9 marlas, has been dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs, in the year 1983, sought the aforementioned relief on the premise that earlier Khasra No.1703 (0-2) was assigned new number as 1253 (0-9), which was a Well used for irrigation and drinking purposes. The said well was connected by 16 - 1/2 feet wide path with Tehsil road running over old khsasra No.1704 and 1705 now killa No.1256 and 1257, respectively. The plaintiffs acquired the character of the public path on the footing of customary right. Government College was built over Wakf land bearing Khasra No.1857 and 1861, which was taken by the Managing Committee, Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala. The defendants had no right and title over the land, but raised temporary construction over some Killa No.1253 shown by letter WXYZ measuring 162 sq. feet and by letters IMNO measuring 255 - sq. feet., for water hut and latrines, whereas the remaining area remained vacant. It was averred that earlier in the year 1976, the suit was filed against a private college known as Haryana War Heoros Memorial College, Gohana, which was dismissed and the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree was withdrawn on 3/9/1987, with permission to file the fresh suit. Again the suit was filed, which was withdrawn, on 11/11/1980, with permission to file the fresh suit, as the private college was taken over by the Government i.e. on 12/2/1981, therefore, the plaintiffs have been consistently fighting for their rights since the closure of the path. Despite repeated requests, the defendants did not hand over the possession and demolish the construction, as such, were constrained to file the suit by arraying the proper parties.

(3.) The defendant opposed the suit by taking numerous objection qua limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, res judicata and on merits, it was stated that they acquired owner of the property, by way of adverse possession, as the possession over the land was since 1964, knowledge to the plaintiff, much less, open and hostile.