MOOL RAJ Vs. GOVIND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 90 -K/XIII -1998.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the suit was filed by Thakur Harnam Singh, who died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representative Sh. Govind Singh was brought on record before the learned Sub Judge (II), Kangra. The suit was filed by Thakur Harnam Singh against the appellant -defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' for convenience sake) for possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 39 min, Khatauni No. 71, Khasra No. 95, measuring 0 -08 -59 hectares situate in Tikka and Mauza Jasoor, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') and for damages in lieu of wrongful possession of the suit land by defendant @ Rs. 500/ - per annum from the year 1987 onwards. In the written statement, preliminary objection was taken regarding cause of action, suit being not maintainable and there being no locus standi to file the suit. On merits, it was alleged that the defendant was in possession of the suit land along with land measuring 12 kanals 4 marlas on the basis of prior agreement. It was further averred that agreement to sell was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 1.7.1980 and thus he was in possession of the suit land in pursuance of the part performance of an agreement to sell. Alternatively, it was submitted that defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the trial court. The learned trial court partly decreed the suit for the relief of possession. However, the relief regarding damages was declined. Defendant feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dated 21.8.1997 preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. She dismissed the same on 22.2.1999. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. The same was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) MR . Ajay Sharma has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge.