RAJINDER PARSHAD Vs. LACHHMAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is concluded by finding of fact. The only contention on which this appeal was admitted was whether the demarcation report given by the Local Commissioner was not in accordance with the provisions of law and ought not to have been relied upon by the First Appellate Court. The substantial questions of law on which this appeal was admitted on May 15, 1993 are :

(2.) In order to appreciate the respective contention of the parties, the facts in brief may be noticed: Land comprised in khasra numbers 596 and 597 measuring 0-1-25 hectares as also khasra numbers 586 and 587 measuring 0-3- 27 hectares, situate in mohal Nagrota Surian, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, Herein after referred to as the "suit land ", is recorded in the ownership of the plaintiffs/appellants. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land prior to the settlement was part of old khasra numbers 244 and 245 This land was purchased by the plaintiffs from one Janmez Singh. Defendant No. 4, Chuhru, encroached upon khasra number 587 and constructed a Tapri (Temporary structure). Plaintiffs pray for a decree of possession of this land. The defendants resist the suit. Allegations are controverted. It is the case of defendants that the suit land is not part of earlier khasra numbers 244 and 245. The revenue record during Consolidation and Settlement was incorrectly prepared. The measurements were carried out by the settlement staff without taking into consideration the increase and decrease in the area of the defendants measuring 1 kanals 9 marlas It is the further case of the defendants that during consolidation, kharsa numbers 586, 587, 596, 597 and 599 have wrongly been shown to have been carved from khasra numbers 244 and 245 and in fact, khasra number 587 is part of old khasra number 246. The plaintiffs have no right, title and interest on this land In the alternative, defendants plead that they are in adverse possession of this land have become owners thereof. In nutshell, the case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land comprised in khasra number 587 is part of old khasra number 244, whereas, defendants contend that the suit land is part of khasra number 246.

(3.) Learned trial Court found that defendants have not been able to prove that the suit land formed part of old khasra number 246 and shajra was wrongly prepared during consolidation. Learned trial Court also concluded that defendants have not been able to prove their adverse possession over the suit land and accordingly, proceeded to decree the suit