RAM SINGH Vs. LILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 61-S/13 of 2006.

(2.) MATERIAL facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for convenience sake) had instituted a suit against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant" for convenience sake), for possession and mandatory injunction for recovery of possession of land and suit property, comprised in Khasra No. 590, including old house, situated in Village Katoh, Pargana-Vakna, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan. He also sought decree of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to pull down the said unauthorized construction forthwith, comprised in Khasra No. 590/3, measuring 1 biswa. He also pleaded that he was owner of 5 biswas of land, situated in Village Katoh, Pargana Vakna, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, comprised in Khewat No. 35/41min, bearing Khasra No. 590. He also pleaded that he owns a house constructed over the land, which covers an area of about 3 biswas, which has been coming under the monthly tenancy of the defendant at the rate of `10/- per month. He filed a suit for injunction against the defendant in the year, 1985. The same was decreed on 25.07.1987. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.07.1987. However, the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 19.11.1991. The Court held the possession of the defendant over the suit land, including over the house illegal and his plea of adverse possession was also rejected. According to him, the defendant had no right to raise construction in the suit land. The construction by the defendant was illegal. She was asked to hand over the possession of the land in suit to the plaintiff, but she had been assuring that she would hand over the possession as and when she finds alternative site for construction of her house, but she has not kept her promise.

(3.) THE Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: