SHYAM LAL Vs. MANBHARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2009.

(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 for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata/Khatoni No. 66/79, Khasra Nos. 29, 150, 186, 355, Kittas-4, measuring 6-6 bighas, situated at village Sayar, Pargana Bahadurpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land" for convenience sake) by way of adverse possession. According to the plaintiff he was adopted son of respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant" for convenience sake), who is his real Aunt. The adoption ceremonies took place on 13.04.1963 in accordance with law, custom and usage prevailing amongst the community. He was given in adoption by his natural parents to the defendants who had no son, except two daughters, namely, Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Kanta Devi. He resided with the defendant before his marriage and even thereafter. The plaintiff had lost his right, title and interest in the property of his family by virtue of the alleged adoption. He had been looking after the suit land since 13.01.1974. His marriage was solemnized on 01.03.1979 and till 25.04.1985, he had been cultivating the suit land peacefully. The defendant tried to take forcible possession of the suit land for the purpose of cultivation, but she could not succeed. According to him, he was in continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession of the suit land since 25.04.1985 and thereby he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant. The defendant has admitted that the plaintiff is the son of her real sister and he was brought up by her. She had also performed the marriage of the plaintiff. She has specifically denied that the plaintiff had been looking after the defendant and managing the suit land. She also pleaded that she had executed a 'Will' in favour of the plaintiff, but on account of his non-cooperative behaviour, she revoked the same, which prompted the plaintiff to file the present suit. The learned trial Court framed the issues on 08.03.2003. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 18.04.2009. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. He dismissed the same on 25.10.2010. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.