KRISHAN CHAND Vs. KANSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.4.2012 rendered by the Additional District Judge, Shimla, camp at Rohru, in Civil Appeal No. 32 -R/13 of 2008. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit for vacant possession against the appellant/defendants (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants" for convenience sake). According to the plaintiff, he was co -owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 142 min, Khatauni No. 329 min, Khasras No. 1270, 1272 and 1312, and Khata No. 143 min Khatauni No. 334/1min, Khasra No. 1314, situated in revenue Chak Telga, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. According to the plaintiff, the defendants encroached upon the suit land in the year 1995. They were requested to hand over the possession of the suit land at that time also, but they told that since crop had been sown, they would hand over the possession after harvesting the crop. The defendants also raised 'dhara' over the suit land. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the appellant/defendant No. 1, namely, Krishan Chand. According to him, the plaintiff was under heavy debt and as such, he orally sold the suit land to him in March 1990 for a consideration of Rs. 23,000/ -. He and his son Bahadur Singh are residing together as a joint Hindu family and the affairs of the house are being looked after and maintained by Bahadur Singh. Bahadur Singh executed a document on 25.2.2002, Ext. DA. According to defendant No. 1, he was in possession of the suit land since 1990 on the basis of the agreement dated 25.2.2002. In the alternative, he has also averred that he is in peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land and has become owner of the same by way of adverse possession.

(3.) LEARNED trial court framed issues on 29.3.2006 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 6.9.2008. Defendant No. 1/appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, who dismissed the same on 20.4.2012. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.