OM PRAKASH Vs. BISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, the appellants have assailed judgment and decree dtd. 17/7/2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in RBT Civil Appeal No. 218-P/10/08, whereby the judgment and decree dtd. 26/5/2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2 Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 5/2006 was reversed.

(2.) The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') filed a suit for possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 33, Khatauni No. 68, Khasra No. 396, measuring 0/2/64 hectares, situated at Mohal Sughar, Mauza Bandla, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') on the basis of his title. The appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') were alleged to be in unauthorised occupation of the suit land since December, 2004. It was specific case of plaintiff that while he was away from the suit land in December, 2004, defendants taking benefit of his absence had unauthorisedly occupied the same and on his return, the defendants refused to hand over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff despite his repeated requests.

(3.) The defendants admitted their unauthorised occupation on the suit land. However, a plea was raised by defendants that their father had been holding the unauthorised occupation of the suit land even prior to the revenue settlement, which had taken place in the year 1974- 75. Defendants asserted their open, hostile and continuous possession on the suit land since then. As per the defendants, plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest were aware about the unauthorised occupation of the defendants and their predecessor-in-interest on the suit land right from the beginning. As a matter of fact, plaintiff and his father in the year 1990-92 had also approached the Assistant Collector for correction of revenue entries in respect of the suit land by way of application bearing case No.19 of 1990, which incidentally was dismissed.