HARISH KUMAR Vs. MANORAMA DEVI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree rendered by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 95-P/XIII/2012 on 29.7.2013, whereby it while affirming the judgment and decree rendered on 31.12.2009 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 130/2007, dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant herein.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/ respondents (for short the "plaintiffs") are owners of the land comprised Khata No. 355, Khatauni No. 593, Khasra No. 577, land measuring 0-00-48 hectares situated at Mohal and Mauja Dadh Jhikla, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra H.P. (for short "the suit land"). It is averred that the suit land is lying vacant and was in their possession. However on 19.6.2007 the defendant/appellant herein (for short "defendant") started raising shed on the suit land. When the defendant was resisted from doing so then he claimed that his possession over the suit land is duly recorded in the revenue records. The plaintiffs thereafter approached the Patwari Halka and obtained revenue record on 25.6.2007 and were surprised to know that the defendant has illegally got himself recorded in the column of possession of the suit land in the revenue records. It is averred that possession of the defendant over the suit land is unlawful and illegal. Hence the present suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed writtenstatement. He in his written-statement has taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, locus standi, valuation and plaintiffs having not approached the Court with clean hands. On merits, the suit has been contested by setting up the title on the basis of his alleged adverse possession. As per the defendant, he is in possession of the suit land from 2.12.1975 and his possession over the suit land was never objected to by anyone and now his possession has ripened into ownership on the basis of adverse possession. On all these submissions, the defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.