LALA RAM AND ORS. Vs. JEET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2008 rendered by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2006.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the Respondent -Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'Plaintiff' for convenience sake) instituted a suit for declaration. According to the Plaintiff, he and Defendants are residents of village Matnoh. The land measuring 0 -3 biswas, comprised in Khasra No. 143, Khewat No. 3/3, Khatauni No. 3 is situated in village Matnoh and house, kitchen and cowshed are existing on it, which are recorded in the names of Defendants -Appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'Defendants' for convenience sake) in revenue papers. One Sh. Bajiru was the father of Shiv Ram, Mansha, Gambho and Lala. Mansha died and his property was given to Dina Nath son of Shiv Ram by way of "will" and Defendants No. 2 and 3, namely, Bansi and Amar Nath also got the property of Gambho by way of "will". The father of the Plaintiff, i.e. Shiv Ram got separated from his brothers and the property was partitioned, according to which, three Kothas (two rooms, kitchen and cowshed) were allotted to the father of the Plaintiff, namely, Shiv Ram. Thereafter, Shiv Ram constructed house and kitchen after removing roof after 10 years, after the partition. 25 years back, Plaintiff got the land alongwith house, cowshed etc. from his father. He became owner in possession of the suit property. Defendant No. 1, Lala Ram, has also got his share at the time of partition. In the month of May, 2003, Patwari and Kanungo went on the spot and demarcated the land and it transpired that the suit land was recorded in the name of Defendants. It is in these circumstances, the present suit was filed. Written statement was filed on behalf of the Defendants. According to them, father of the Plaintiff separated from his brothers in all respects and since then the houses and land of the parties was being enjoyed by them separately and there was no question of claiming adverse possession and during consolidation proceedings, the suit land fell in exclusive ownership and possession of the Defendants. According to the Defendants, land comprised in Khasra No. 143, measuring 1 bigha was owned and possessed by them. The houses existing on khasra No. 143 belongs to Defendants. However, it was admitted that Defendants No. 2 and 3, namely, Bansi and Amar Nath got the property of deceased Gambho by way of "will". The family of Plaintiff and Defendants separated in 1985 -86. The houses of Shiv Ram and Jeet Ram were given to them in consolidation proceedings and land beneath the same was also allotted to the parties as per their possession and construction raised in the total land. According to them, patwari and Kanungo in connivance with the Plaintiff made a false report that the houses existing on Khasra No. 143 belongs to Plaintiff. Replication was filed by the Plaintiff. Issues were framed by the trial court on 7.4.2004. The trial court dismissed the suit on 11.7.2006. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Bilaspur. He allowed the same on 12.3.2008. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2008. It was admitted on 24.11.2009 on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) MR . Sanjeev Kuthiala has supported the judgment and decree dated 11.7.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur.