BHAG SINGH Vs. PIAR DASSI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC against judgment and decree dated 17.8.2005 rendered by the learned ADJ.., Fast Track, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 18/2005, whereby judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu (HP) in Civil Suit No. 35 of 2004, has been modified.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts as emerge from the record are that the appellant-plaintiff (herein after, 'plaintiff') filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents-defendants (hereinafter, 'defendants') from causing any sort of interference in his ownership and possession over land comprised in Khasra No. 117 contained in Khata Khatauni No. 456 min/496 min, as per Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 situated in Phati Palach, Kothi Palach, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh (herein after, 'suit land') and residential house situated in the Abadi owned and possessed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that the suit land was earlier owned and possessed by his father, Shri Khinthu, who executed a registered Will dated 16.4.1985, in his favour as well as his brother Puran Singh. As per plaintiff, after death of their father, they became owner-in-possession of the suit land. Plaintiff further claimed that his father disinherited his daughter i.e. defendant No.1, who was married during his life time and, since then, she had been residing in the matrimonial house, with her husband. Plaintiff termed defendants to be strangers to the suit land/property stating that they have no right, title or interest over the suit land. But since defendants started interfering in the owner-in-possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, without there being any right or title, he was compelled to file instant suit seeking therein permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, as stated above.

(3.) Defendants, by way of detailed written statement, refuted aforesaid contentions of the plaintiff. Defendants stated that the residential house is not standing over the suit land, but the same has been constructed by them, over the Government land and for the last 30 years, they have been residing therein. Defendants claimed that their possession over the house, as mentioned above, is without interruption and to the notice and knowledge of the public at large as well as plaintiff, and, a such, they have become owners by way of adverse possession. Defendants neither disputed the execution of Will in favour of the plaintiff and his brother, nor their ownership and possession over the suit land. Rather, defendants claimed themselves to be owner of land adjoining to the suit land, which actually belonged to the Government. As per the defendants, Government land was encroached and made cultivable by defendant No.1 and plaintiff had no concern with the encroached land. While seeking dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff, defendants further claimed that they never interfered in the ownership of the plaintiff, rather, he wants to dispossess them from encroached land and house, which is under their possession. Similarly, defendants claimed that crop was harvested from encroached land, which was sown by them.