KALI DASS Vs. BABU RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has preferred this Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below whereby the suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of suit land comprised in Khewat No.220min, Khatauni No.353, Khasra No.433, measuring 0.12 bigha, situate in Village Panjgain, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur,H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) since 15.04.1975 peacefully, uninterruptedly, openly and hostile to the knowledge of the defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) and as such the plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession. It was averred that the defendants No.1 to 6 recorded as owners and defendants No.7 and 8 recorded as mortgagees of the suit land in the revenue record have no right, title and interest in the suit land and despite this fact the defendants had started interference in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff in the alternative had prayed for grant of decree for possession.

(3.) The defendants No.1 to 6 resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action, valuation, estoppel and misjoinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was averred by the defendants that suit land was mortgaged by the father of defendants No.1 to 6 with Shri Sohanu father of defendants No. 7 and 8. It was also averred that defendants No. 1 to 6 and Shri Daya Ram deceased redeemed the suit land from Shri Sohanu in the year 1980 on payment of Rs. 40/-. The defendants No. 7 and 8 have no right, title or interest in the suit land. It was further averred that though entries were existing in the name of Shri Sohanu, the defendants No.1 to 6 are owners in possession of the suit land and were entitled to restoration of possession, if dispossessed, during the pendency of suit or failed to prove their possession. The defendant No.6 had died during the pendency of suit. Lastly, it was pleaded that the defendants were entitled to special costs.