RAMAWATI VOHRA Vs. DEVI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant - defendant against the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kasauli, District Solan, whereby the suit filed by the respondent -plaintiff has been decreed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff - respondent (herein after referred to as the 'plaintiff'), filed a suit for possession in respect of the land, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, alleging therein that he was coming in possession of the suit land as a tenant and paying lagan @ Rs.1/ - per annum since the time of his predecessor -in -interest. It was alleged by the plaintiff that out of 5 biswas of land in Khasra No.91, as per tatima, the plaintiff was in possession of

(3.) biswas of land in Khasra No.91/1 and the remaining 2 biswas of land in Khasra No.91/2 was in possession of Ganesh Dutt etc. It was further alleged that appellant -defendant (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant') without any right, title and interest encroached upon the portion of the suit land and the house, existing on the same, in the year 1994. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that he applied for demarcation on 31.3.1995 and tatima of the land was prepared by Patwari on 3.11.1998. The plaintiff further alleged that he was entitled to recover the possession of the suit land from the defendant and was also entitled to recover the compensation at the rate of Rs.500/ - per month w.e.f. 1.12.1996 from the defendant as use and occupation charges. 3. Defendant, by way of filing written statement, took preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable, the plaintiff was estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit and the plaintiff had suppressed the material facts from the Court. On merits, the defendant denied to have encroached upon the land of the plaintiff and alleged that no demarcation had been carried out in her presence. The defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit.