DEVI CHAND Vs. RAJ DULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole substantial question of law in this Regular Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is "whether the appellant -defendant had become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession" ? In order to understand the real controversy in between the parties, it would be pertinent to detail the relevant facts. The bone of contention in between the parties to the instant lis is the land comprised in plot No, 13, Block 1 -A, measuring 1 bigha situate at Saproon Mandi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) Shri Kirpa Narain was the original owner of the suit land. He had three seas, namely, Prem Kumar, Krishan Kumar and Lalit Kumar. On his death, his heirs inherited the suit land. Later said heirs of Sh. Kirpa Narain sold the suit land vide registered sale deed on 30 -12 -1980. Thus plaintiff claiming to be the owner in possession of the suit land filed the instant suit for declaration that earlier orders passed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade Solan, dated 26 -6 -1979, that of the Collector dated 15 -2 -1982 and ultimately of the Divisional Commissioner, dated 17 -12 -1983 holding Smt. Lachmi Devi to be in possession of the suit land as "Kabja Najayaj" are wrong, illegal and of no consequence. In the alternative, the plaintiff sought the relief that in case the defendant Smt. Lachmi Devi is found to be in possession of a portion of the suit land, a decree for possession be passed against her.

(2.) The defendant resisted and contested the suit by raising preliminary objection, inter alia relating to the locus standi, limitation, jurisdiction and valuation for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits the allegations of the plaintiffs title and possession was disputed. It was averred that "possession of the suit land is with the replying defendant for the last over 30/35 years and she is enjoying the possession property as owner". Regarding orders passed by the revenue authorities it was contended that they are legal and valid.

(3.) The trial Court framed various issues, one of which is material for determining the instant lis i. e. "whether defendant has become owner by adverse possession" ?