GAJINDER SINGH Vs. NAROTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S/Shri Narotam Singh and Bhupender Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they and proforma defendant No. 12, Shri Parshottam Singh were owners in occupation as co -sharers of the suit land described in the plaint, while defendant Nos. 1 to 11 have got no right, title or interest in the suit land, who were alleged to be interfering in their possession. Hence, as a consequential relief permanent injunction was asked for. In the alternative, the plaintiffs prayed for the decree of possession.

(2.) The case put up by the plaintiffs in their plaint had been that one Shri Sham Lal was the owner in occupation of the suit land as a co -sharer. His share in the Khata comes out to be more than 7 kanals 5 marlas which was the area of the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, Sham Lal vide registered sale deed dated 28 -1 -1969 transferred the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs, who came to occupy the same and have been in occupation till the filing of the suit as owners. It was pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 to 11 never occupied the suit land on any occasion, neither they have any right to occupy the same. Plaintiffs also pleaded that the defendants pro claimed that at one time they were occupying this land as tenants and now would dispossess the plaintiffs and shall occupy the suit land, though they had no right whatsoever to do the same. It was also pleaded that in case the defendants tried to occupy the suit land, in that event, decree for pos session be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit for declaration and injunction was filed on the basis of the aforesaid averments.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 to 11 preferred a joint written statement, wherein they took various preliminary objections. On merit, their simple case was that Sham Lal or other co -sharers never occupied the suit land. It was further pleaded that since June -July 1948, the contesting defendants have been in occupation of this land. It has been very specifically pleaded by these defendants that the suit land was given to them by Shri Sham Lal for cultivation and since then, they are in occupation of the same as owners. It was also pleaded that by way of adverse possession, they have become owners. According to them, plaintiffs never occupied the suit land. Other averments of the plaint were not admitted.