PREMA Vs. SURAT RAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming therein a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction besides a decree for possession being pronounced in respect of the suit land vis-a-vis the defendants. The learned trial Court declined relief of possession to the plaintiff, whereas, it proceeded to decree the suit of the plaintiff in respect of relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. The defendants being aggrieved therefrom, instituted an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, whereupon, it reversed the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff instituted the instant appeal before this Court, wherein, reversal of the verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, is strived.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 1- 10 bighas bearing Khasra No. 110/10, Khata/Khatauni No.34/45, situated in Village Kurnwari, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter called as the suit land). The defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land. On 8.2.1994, the defendants had started digging the suit land and cutting trees therefrom and thereby threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. The plaintiff had requested them to stop interference with his possession over the suit land, but to of no avail. Hence, he had brought the suit against them.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement as well counter claim against the plaintiff for declaration that they had become owners of land measuring 0.2 biswa bearing Khasra No.110/10/1 and 0.9 biswas bearing khasra No.110/10/2, by way of adverse possession. The defendants have assailed the suit of the plaintiff on preliminary objection such as non joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, estoppel, valuation of suit and limitation. On merits, they had pleaded that the dispute between the parties had arisen on the basis of demarcation carried out by Tehsildar Ghumarwin, who had shown khasra No.110/10/1, measuring 0.2 biswas and Khasra No.110/10/2, measuring 0.9 biswas in possession of the defendants. Second demarcation was again conducted on 20.06.1984 and the said land was not found in possession of the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the aforementioned area of 0.11 biswas is part of land of defendants bearing khasra No.15, situated adjoining the suit land thus the defendants were owners in possession of the same. It is also alleged that in case the defendants are not held to be owners of land measuring 0.2 biswas and 0.9 biswas bearing khasra No. 110/10/1 and 110/10/2 respectively, then they had become owners thereof by adverse possession. In nutshell the defendants refuted case of the plaintiff and claimed themselves to be owners of land measuring 0-11 biswas shown by khasra NO.110/10/1 and 110/10/2 and they had prayed that their counter claim be decreed and the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.