KAMLA Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Regular Second Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Additional District Judge(2), Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 18.3.1994, vide which the appeal filed by the respondents as against the appellant as against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dehra, dated 31.3.1992, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for possession and on appeal, decree for possession was passed by the learned first appellate Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 as plaintiffs filed a suit for possession as against the original appellant, hereinafter referred to as the defendants. The allegations made by the plaintiffs were that suit land comprised in Khasra No. 309 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. measuring 0-05-68 Hectares (old Khasra No.240 min) was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs before settlement. During settlement, the defendant in collusion with the settlement staff got himself recorded in possession of the suit land. The defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land at the time of sowing of Rabi crop in 1988. The plaintiffs asked him to deliver the possession of the suit land but he refused, hence the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE learned trial Court framed main issue on merit in regard to question as to whether the defendant is owner in possession of the suit land, by way of adverse possession. On conclusion of the trial, the suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. On appeal, those findings were reversed by the learned first appellate Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.