NEELAM KUMAR Vs. TEMPLE OF DEVI AMBIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question required for the determination of this Court is whether in a case where a person is in settled possession of the property in dispute even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, such person can be dispossesed by the owner thereof except in due course of law.

(2.) Property in dispute consists of two shops and one room in ground floor of Darshnomii Akhara in Nirmond Bazar, Kullu Distt., Kullu. The plaintiff claimed its ownership since the time of his fore -fathers on the basis of being in adverse possession thereof The defendants refuted the claim by raising various preliminary objections with respect to locus standi and on merits that the plaintiff was not in possession of the demised premises. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant had dismantled portion of the roof of the premises in question and attempted to obtain forcible possession of the property. Defendant admitted the factum of having dismantled a portion of the roof but contended that the plaintiff came into possession of the property in dispute under the garb of injunction sought for from the Court

(3.) Both the Courts below found the plaintiff to be in settled possession of the property in question However, the trial Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the plaintiff is in possession since long, but he has not proved his title thereto. Further, it was found that the plaintiff has not proved his ownership by way of adverse possession.