MANOHAR LAL AND ORS. Vs. URMILA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to the judgment and decree dated 14.3.2001, passed by learned Additional District Judge -II, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No. 40 -G/97, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court on 27.2.1997, in Civil Suit No. 284 of 1986, has been quashed and the appeal allowed. As a consequence thereof the suit filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') was dismissed.

(2.) The bone of contention in the present lis is a double storeyed house, known as "Purani Haveli" bounded in East by the land of S/Shri Kamla Parshad and Rup Lal, West that of Shri Badri Prashad, North that of S/Shri Naval Kishore, Mathra Dass and in the South there exists a public path. The suit house is over the land bearing Khata No. 50 min, Khatauni No. 82 min, Khasra Nos. 592 to 597, measuring 136.37 square meters, situate in Mohal Devital, Mauza Darang, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, as per entries in the Missal Hakiat for the year 1978 -79, Ext. P -5. The pre -settlement Khata number of the entire abadi land over which the suit house is constructed, was 100 min, Khatauni No. 141 min and Khasra No. 452/227, measuring 532 kanals 16 marlas. A reference in this behalf can be made to the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1972 -73, Ext. P -3. The house is a joint Hindu family property of which Shri Chiranji Lal Shashtri, the father of the plaintiff was the "Karta". In a settlement arrived at in the year 1972 -73, the house suit fell to the share of plaintiff and as such he became owner in possession thereof. The defendants were allowed to reside in the suit house comprising three rooms on ground floor and one room of its first floor. Their possession, as such, is permissive and the plaintiff being owner of the house is entitled to claim possession thereof from the defendants. The plaintiff is in need of the suit house as after his retirement he intended to start his legal profession and to settle in this house. He requested the defendants to hand over the possession of the suit house but of no available, hence the suit for possession of the suit house and the land beneath it.

(3.) The defendants had entered appearance and contested the suit. Besides raising preliminary objections, they came forward with the version that the plaintiff is neither owner of the suit house nor has any concern therewith in any manner whatsoever. The suit property is in their possession and prior to them in possession of their predecessor -in -interest. Also that they have been born in the suit house and residing there with their brothers and sisters, their parents were also residing in the suit house, therefore, they have become owner thereof by way of adverse possession.