COL MEHAR SINGH Vs. SUDESH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit for possession of suit khasra numbers was decreed by the learned trial Court also it pronounced a decree for demolition of the super structure raised thereon. The judgment and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court, stood, carried in appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, whereupon, the latter Court affirmed the judgment and decree recorded by the learned trial Court, upon, the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 46 of 2000. Being aggrieved therefrom, the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant appeal before this Court, for his concerting to beget its reversal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff claimed decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching upon the suit land or raising any construction as well as to change the nature of the suit land. It has been averred that the suit land was owned and possessed by the plaintiff. However, during the pendency of the suit some construction was raised regarding which prayer had been made that the decree for possession be passed in case any encroachment or construction is raised on the suit land by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession of the suit land, but the defendant started interference and threatened to raise construction over the part of the suit land for which material was collected and arrangement for labourers to dig the land was also made. It is also averred that the defendant had forcibly taken possession of suit land and illegally raised construction of shed during the pendency of the suit, despite stay orders having been passed by the Court thereby decree for possession after demolition of the structure had also been prayed.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein he has taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, estoppel, locus standi. On merits, it is claimed that the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession. The defendant had asserted that the plaintiff is not owner nor was in possession of the suit land. It has been alleged that the defendant and Tarlok Chand purchased three kanals and 10 marlas of land from one Smt. Sarla Devi vide registered sale deed No.266 of 14.8.1972, out of khasra No.209. Mutation was also attested and the defendant came into its possession. Thereafter demarcation was also taken by the defendants. Since, the year 1972, the defendant never parted with possession of suit land and the possession was to the knowledge of Sarla Devi as well as that of plaintiff. It has been averred that the husband of plaintiff is serving in the Revenue Department, who got the land purchased and got the land of defendant included in the suit land by getting the Karukans changed and when came to the notice of defendant, he applied for the correction of karukans by moving an application which was dismissed. However, the matter is now pending before the Settlement Collector. It has also been averred that the husband of the plaintiff was knowing that karukans had been got fictitiously and thereby he managed the sale deed in the name of his wife. However, despite that possession was never taken by her. The plaintiff after instituting the suit tried to take forcible possession of the suit land, whereby, the defendant completed the construction work in the year 1982-83 and the plaintiff be restrained from interfering over the suit land which is in possession of defendant by filing counter claim. It had been prayed that the decree be passed declaring the defendant to be owner in possession of the suit land and restraining the plaintiff from interfering over the peaceful possession of defendant over the suit land.