LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-24

SUNKA Vs. RAM DHAN

Decided On May 22, 2017
Sunka Appellant
V/S
RAM DHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintained by the appellant against the judgment and decree, dated 18.11.2005, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P, in Civil Appeal No.98 of 2003, whereby the learned Appellate Court below has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (H.P), in Case No.91-1 of 1990, dated 31.5.2003.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs') filed a suit for injunction and in alternative for possession against the appellants/defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') alleging that land comprising Khewat No.102 min, Khatauni No.119 min, Khasra No.164 and 167, measuring 6.14 bighas, situated in Village Jamthal, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P, (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land, but they have started causing interference in the suit land and threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land forcibly. The defendants started interfering in the suit land on 1.8.1990 by cutting the grass from there and when they were asked not to do so, they threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. It is further averred that on 19.3.1990, demarcation was conducted qua the suit land, which was confirmed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and during demarcation, the defendants were not found in possession of any part of the suit land whereas the plaintiff was found in exclusive possession and new construction raised by the plaintiff was also found in his own land.

(3.) The suit was resisted and contested by defendants by filing written statement alleging that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is not maintainable in the present form being barred by time. They have also contended that suit is also barred by principle of res judicata. In reply, they have specifically contended that they are in possession of the suit land having become its owner by way of adverse possession. The defendants are owners of the portion of the suit land, as they are in possession since the time of Thagu, predecessor-in-interest of the parties and their houses are existing thereon. It has been denied by the defendants that any demarcation was conducted by the plaintiff on 19.1990 and the defendants were not found in possession of the suit land.