MAST RAM Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was admitted on the following question of law:-

(2.) FACTS relevant for the decision of the appeal and answering the aforesaid question may be noticed. Respondents- plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of 1 Kanal 5 Marlas land having five rooms and two cattle- sheds on it and described as Abadi in the revenue papers, pleading that the property had been given to the predecessor of the defendants by the predecessor of the plaintiffs on the understanding that he and his successors would continue to assist the predecessor of the plaintiff in cultivating their land and also would render domestic help. It was alleged that about two years before the institution of the suit, the defendants stopped rendering help to the plaintiffs in their domestic as also agricultural work and so they were liable to vacate the property. A notice was issued to the defendants before the filing of the suit requiring them to hand over the possession.

(3.) LEARNED trial court accepted the plea of the appellants- defendants that they had acquired title by prescription and accordingly dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the court of District Judge, who reversed the finding of the trial court with regard to the plea of adverse possession of the defendants- appellants and consequently passed a decree for possession in favour of the respondents- plaintiffs.