TEJA RAM Vs. KAMLI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant and has come up in appeal against concurrent findings recorded against him by the learned Courts below.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for possession in the trial Court pleading that the property detailed in Khata Khatauni No. 58/66, Khasra No. 115, measuring 14 -15 bighas situated in village Palion, Tehsil Nahan is a "Gair Mumkin Abadi" of inhabitants of village Palion and the plaintiff being member of the village community Palion has been coming in peaceful possession of a 'Chhaper' in Khasra No. 115, which is shown by red ink and marked with word 'A' in rough site plan (hereinafter referred to as suit 'Chhaper'), since the times of his forefathers. It is further averred by the plaintiff that he used to keep his cattle in the suit 'Chhaper' without any hindrance from anybody including the defendants/respondents as owner thereof. It is alleged that on 16.4.2002 the defendants, who are related to each other, formed an unlawful assembly and came over 'Chhaper' in dispute and dispossessed him unlawfully and forcibly by removing his cattle therefrom. Per the plaintiff, he sustained injury while protecting his possession and resisting the criminal assault on him by the defendants, who were armed with deadly weapons. The plaintiff reported the matter to the police, on which a case under various offences was registered against the defendants. The police also filed proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the Court of SDM, Nahan and further requested to attach the suit property and to appoint receiver during the pendency of the proceedings. It is further averred that the plaintiff is a law abiding person and therefore, he preferred to file the present suit for possession.

(3.) IN the replication filed by the plaintiff the averments contained in the plaint were reiterated and the assertions made in the written statement by the defendants were controverted. As per plaintiff, he has no knowledge about the sale transaction as pleaded by the defendants. However, it is pleaded that late Dila Ram had no concern with the suit 'Chhaper' nor his daughters had any right to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant.