JOGINDER SINGH & OTHERS Vs. LALITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2006, passed by learned Additional District Judge-(I), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.51-N/04, affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2004, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Court No.1, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P., whereby suit for possession having been filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') was decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants') averring therein that land comprised in Khata No.33min, Khatauni No.67, Khasra Nos.471, 476, plots 2, measuring 0-14-06 hectares, situated in Mohal Madanpur, Mauza Pandred, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') is owned by her and her daughter Deepika and defendants have no right, title or interest over the same. Plaintiff further averred in the plaint that till October, 2000, she alongwith her daughter was in cultivating possession of the suit land from the time of their ancestors. As per plaintiff, prior to her possession over the suit land, her husband; namely; Brahmo was owner in possession of the suit land, who died on 23.5.1990, and after his death she and her daughter were continued to be in possession of the suit land till October, 2000. Plaintiff further alleged in the plaint that defendants during settlement operation got themselves recorded as 'Kabiz' in the suit land in connivance with the settlement officials and taking undue advantage of this wrong entry of possession recorded in their favour, took forcible possession of the suit land on 25.10.2000 and started cultivating the same. Plaintiff further alleged that she has repeatedly asked the defendants to admit her claim in the suit land and handover its possession, but all in vain and as such she was compelled to file instant suit for possession.

(3.) Defendants, by way of written statement, refuted the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff on the ground of maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and limitation. Defendants further claimed that they are in possession of the suit land since November, 1982 continuously till date and as such they have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession in the month of November, 1994 during the life time of Shri Brahmo i.e. the husband of the plaintiff. Defendants further alleged that the plaintiff and her daughter are not owners of the suit land and they have no concern, whatsoever, with it. Rather, they are in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land since November, 1982 and their possession is hostile to the interest of the plaintiff and therefore, they claimed right of the ownership by way of adverse possession of the suit land.