LAKSHMAN SINGH Vs. PIAR DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant and respondent No.2 are the defendants, whereas, respondent No.l is the plaintiff in a suit filed by her and they will be referred to as such in this judgment.

(2.) The appellant -defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.1999 passed by District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and the decree and judgment dated 19.1.1999 passed by Sub Judge (II), Nurpur district Kangra, was set aside and the case was remanded for decision afresh after giving opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence. The trial Court had dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, as despite five opportunities, plaintiff failed to appear herself and also produce evidence though when further adjournment was declined learned counsel for the plaintiff had tendered two documents Exts. P.I and P.2 on record.

(3.) On the allegations that defendants were in illegal and un -authorised possession of the suit property since 1983 as it was never given to them for cultivation or otherwise, the plaintiff filed suit for possession claiming herself to be the owner. Respondent No.2 defendant admitted the claim of the plaintiff in his written statement but appellant -defendant opposed it by taking number of preliminary objections and also on merits denying, her claim of ownership of the suit property by assailing the will as forged whereby the suit property was allegedly bequeated to her by its previous owner. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is also not successor -in - interest of the previous owner under the Hindu succession Act. He claimed himself to be the statutory tenant as he had been paying Galla Batai to the original owner. He also took the plea of adverse possession in the alternative.