NIRMALA DEVI Vs. NATHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to the judgment and decree dated 1.6.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2003. The lower appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2003, passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Rampur Bushahr, in Civil Suit No. 65 -1 of 2001 and dismissed the appeal. The present as such is a case of concurrent findings recorded by both Courts below on appreciation of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record.

(2.) The defendant is in second appeal, as the complaint is that the respondent/plaintiff has sold land measuring 5 bighas including the suit land to her and her husband late Shri Ram Rattan. On the other hand, the case of the respondent/plaintiff is that he has only sold 4 -14 bighas of land bearing Khasra No. 1845/1692/420/1 to the defendant and her husband late Shri Ram Rattan. The suit land is entered in Khata/Khatauni No. 107/518, Khasra No. 39 (new), measuring 0 -02 -41 hectares corresponding to old Khasra No. 1845/1692/420/2, measuring 6 biswas. The same is in his ownership and possession. The defendant allegedly managed the entry of possession qua the suit land during the recent settlement having taken place three months prior to institution of the suit and thereafter started collecting construction material thereon. She started construction work and erected a pillar over the suit land. He requested her to desist from such illegal acts, but of no avail. Therefore, decree for possession of the suit land by demolition of the construction raised thereon was sought by filing the present suit in the trial Court.

(3.) The defendant, besides preliminary objections, has carved out a case that she had purchased 5 bighas of land in a sum of Rs. 4,500/ - from the respondent/plaintiff. Agreement Ext. DW6/A came to be executed between them. A sum of Rs. 3,000/ - was paid to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement, whereas Rs. 1,000/ - on 1.5.1978 vide receipt mark 'Y'. Therefore, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the suit land. It is denied that she started collecting the construction material over the suit land and rather according to her; she had constructed the house over the land she purchased from the plaintiff much prior to filing of the suit. She has disputed the locus -standi of the plaintiff to ask her to desist from raising any construction over the suit land, as according to her, she otherwise has perfected her title by way of adverse possession being in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land right from 15.2.1978 till date. On such pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court has framed the following issues: