BISHNA (SINCE DECEASED) Vs. ATMA NAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through, the instant appeal, the appellants challenge the verdict recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, upon, Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2009, wherethrough, the learned First Appellate Court, after reversing, the verdict pronounced by the learned Civil Judge concerned, upon Civil Suit No. 201 of 1997, proceeded to make an order, of, remand to the learned trial Court, for its hence rendering a decision afresh, in accordance with law, upon, the afore civil suit.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendants No.1 and 2 that they had been joint owners in possession of the land described in the plaint. The defendants No.1 and 2 had no right, title or interest over the suit land. They had been recorded in possession of the suit land vide orders dated 17.7.1984/19.6.1985 passed in case No.341/81, 343/84 and 344/84 by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Una. Such orders were stated wrong, illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants had started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs on the strength of such orders, w.e.f. July 1997. They had been requested not to do so, but without any result and, hence the suit for declaration and injunction. In the alternative the plaintiffs had sought relief of possession in case defendants were successful in taking forcible possession or had been otherwise treated in possession.

(3.) The defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objection qua maintainability,estoppel, limitation, non joinder and valuation. It had also been averred that some of the plaintiffs were minor and suit on their behalf without appointment of guardians was incompetent. On merits, the defendants had denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs of the suit land. The defendants had stated that they had been in possession of suit land for over 40 years prior to the institution of the suit. The possession of the defendants was open, hostile, continuous without interruption and hence adverse to the plaintiffs. The defendants had acquired rights of ownership by adverse possession.