SURJEET KAUR Vs. BHARAT SINGH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) BHOORA , predecessor of respondents No. 1 to 11, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction, restraining the present appellant, who was impleaded as defendant No. 2 and proforma respondent No. 12 Amarjit Singh, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1, from causing any interference in his possession over land, measuring one Bigha, bearing Khasra No. 488/21, alleging that he was owner in possession of the suit land. The appellant and proforma respondent No. 12 contested the suit by filing separate written statements. The appellant in the written statement nowhere claimed specifically or even by implication That she had any right, title or interest in the subject matter of the suit, but took a vague plea that the plaintiff was unaware of the boundaries of his property and that she was not making or attempting to make any encroachment upon the suit land and that she was in possession of her own property and major portion of her property had already been built upon by her.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that as a matter of fact appellant's husband Dharjit Singh had purchased the suit land from the previous owner Gian Singh and that after the purchase, she came in possession and hence the plea of deceased plaintiff Bhoora that he was owner in possession, could not have been upheld and decree could not have been passed in his favour.