JAGDISH RAM Vs. SATPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.04.1998, passed by learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Court No.1, Una, H.P., whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the record, are that the appellants-plaintiffs (herein after referred to as the plaintiffs'), filed a suit for possession of the land denoted by letters ABCD circumscribed by red letters in the site plan attached with the plaint being part and parcel of the land measuring 1 Kanal 12 marlas, comprised in Khewat No.190 min, Khatauni No.330 min, Khasra No.58, situated in village Jakhera, Tehsil and District Una (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'). It is averred by the plaintiffs that the suit land is owned and possessed by them alongwith other co-sharers; namely; Dhanwanti, Krishna, Nirmla, Kamlesh, Shublata, Kishan Dev etc. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that the defendants, being more in number and headstrong persons of the locality, forcibly encroached upon the suit land and took the possession of the same, for which they are neither entitled nor have any right to do so. It is further averred in the plaint that the possession of the defendants over the suit land is that of a trespasser. In the aforesaid background the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit before the learned trial Court.

(3.) Defendants, by way of filing joint written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the defendants have denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs. It is specifically pleaded by the defendants that the area denoted by letters ABCD is not a part of Khasra No.58 and the same is not in ownership and possession of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint. It is averred by the defendants that the site-plan is wrong and incorrect. It is further averred by the defendants that the eastern line of Khasra Nos.54, 55 and 57 has not been depicted correctly as it has been shown to be less and thereby to decrease the area of the defendants as the dimension to the land of defendants has not been correctly shown. It is further averred by the defendants that there is no encroachment over the suit land , as alleged by the plaintiffs in the plaint, nor any forcible possession has been made by the defendants. It is averred by the defendants that the area denoted by letters ABCD is part of their land and the same is not a part of the land of the plaintiffs, hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as alleged. In the aforesaid background the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.