RAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. THUNIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DT></DT> <JGN>V.K.Sharma</JGN> <ADV>Ajay Chandel,Ajay Sharma</ADV> <AT>RSA No. 331 of 2003.</AT> <SI> <ACT>Limitation Act, 1963</ACT><S>Art.65</S> Plea of adverse possession - Intention of statute is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights but to protect those who have maintained possession of property for time specified by statute under claim or color of title - Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but blended one of fact and law. </SI> <RC>Annakili Vs. Vedanayagam, AIR 2008 SC 346</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>Ashok Kumar Vs. Hardyal, 1995 1 SHIMLC 79</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>Beaulane Properties Ltd. Vs. Palmer, 2005 3 WLR 554</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>Chatti Konati Rao Vs. Palle Venkata Subba Rao, 2010 14 SCC 316</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>D.N. Venkatarayappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 1997 7 SCC 567</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>Dalip Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1990 2 SHIMLC 221</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>Gajinder Singh Vs. Narotam Singh, 1995 2 SHIMLC 314</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009 16 SCC 517</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd. Vs. Graham, 2003 1 AC 419</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>Konda Lakshmana Bapuji Vs. Govt. of A.P., 2002 3 SCC 258</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy Vs. Revamma, 2007 6 SCC 59</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>Rajinder Singh Vs. Dalbir Singh, AIR 1998 HP 43</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <RC>Tilak Raj Vs. Bhagat Ram, 1997 1 SHIMLC 281</RC><RCG>Referred to</RCG> <JT> <DJG>V.K.SHARMA,J.</DJG> <PARA><DT></DT>The challenge herein in this regular second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2003, passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala (H.P.) in Civil Appeal No. 129-N/XIII/2001, titled Thunia and Others Vs. Ran Singh and Others , whereby the judgment and decree dated 1.1.2001, passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (I), Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 111 of 1995, Ran Singh and Others Vs. Thunia and Others , has been reversed and the suit for possession filed by the appellants as plaintiffs against the respondents being defendants, on the basis of title, has been dismissed and the defendants have been held to have acquired title to the land in dispute, by adverse possession.

(2.) The dispute between the parties concerns the land bearing khata No. 36 min, khatauni No. 48, khasra Nos. 29, 82, 225, plots 3, measuring 0-25-61 hectares, as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93, situate in Tika Gatla, Mauza Kukher Khwara, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the suit land'.

(3.) According to the plaintiffs, the suit land is owned by them and is entered in possession of the defendants as 'Kabiz'. It is averred that prior to settlement, the suit land was entered in khata No. 24 min, khatauni No. 60 min, khasra Nos. 141, 592 and 619/215, plots 3, measuring 6 kanals 11 marlas, vide jamabandi for the year 1977-78 and was in self cultivating possession of the owners, as shown in jamabandi 1977-78.