KRISHAN CHAND Vs. AMAR NATH & OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi dated 5.3.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2006, vide which judgment the learned First Appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the present respondents/defendants and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi dated 1.6.2006 in Civil Suit No. 179 of 2004.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against respondents/defendants with regard to the suit land, on the pleadings that his father was coming in exclusive possession of the suit land since April, 1970 and his father used to consider this land to be his own land being situated adjoining to other land owned by him and respondents/defendants never objected to his such possession. It was further averred that the suit land was under cultivable possession of the father of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, in October, 1990 defendants created dispute with his father on the plea that the suit land and remaining land comprised in khasra No. 563 had been granted by the Government by way of 'Nautaur' to the predecessor -in -interest of defendants and called upon the father of the plaintiff to part with the possession of the suit land in their favour. It was further pleaded in the plaint that respondents/defendants tried to forcibly plough the suit land but father of the plaintiff foiled their attempts. After the death of his father, plaintiff continued in possession and cultivates the same. He further stated in the plaint that even if possession is reckoned from 15th October, 1990, the possession over the suit land of his father was open, peaceful, exclusive and hostile to the knowledge of the defendants and said possession had ripened into absolute title on 15th October, 2002. The possession of the father of plaintiff matured into adverse possession and after the death of his father, plaintiff had stepped into the footstep of his father and was in possession of the suit land. It was further his case that by taking undue advantage of the wrong and incorrect revenue entries defendants, since 20.6.2004, were threatening to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. On these bases, the plaintiff filed the suit, wherein he prayed that he be declared as owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and existing revenue entries be corrected in his favour and defendants be restrained from causing any interference in the peaceful enjoinment possession of the suit land.

(3.) In written statement, the defendants therein denied the case of the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was of quarrelsome nature and he forcibly grabed the suit land and on 20.7.2004 he and his mother had attacked defendant No.5 which had also resulted into filing of FIR. It was denied in written statement that the suit land was under the possession of the plaintiff.