JASWANT SINGH & OTHERS Vs. IQBAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.59/2002, dated 23.2.2006, affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Civil Suit No.196 of 1993, dated 25.6.2002, praying therein to dismiss the suit having been filed by the plaintiff-respondent after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Necessary facts, as emerged from the record, are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed a Civil Suit praying therein for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction and possession in the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, restraining the defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants') from interfering in any manner, in the suit land owned and possessed by them. Plaintiff averred in the plaint that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 0-02-70 hectares, bearing Khewat No.21 min, Khatauni No.60 min, Khasra Nos.642, 643 and 642/1 as entered in the Missalhaquiat for the year 1988-89, situate in village Mubarikpur, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land'). Plaintiff averred that the defendants, who are head strong persons, threatened him to take forcible possession of the suit land by raising construction and in this regard have already collected material. During the pendency of case, plaint came to be amended, whereby the plaintiff further averred that during the pendency of the suit, defendants have encroached upon the portion marked with letters ABCDEFGHIJ as shown in the site plan filed by the plaintiff in Khasra Nos.642, 642/1 and have also raised Khadposh Tapri over the portion marked with letters EFGH and have encroached upon the whole portion marked with letters A to J without the consent of the plaintiff. Plaintiff further claimed that possession of the defendants over this portion is that of a trespasser and as such they are liable to be ejected from this land. In this background, the plaintiff sought a decree for possession and injunction against the defendants.

(3.) Defendants, by way of filing their joint written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground of maintainability, estoppel and limitation. On merits, defendants refuted the claim put forth by the plaintiff and claimed that the land denoted by letters KBCD, out of the land comprised of Khasra No.643, is in their possession since the time of their ancestors and they are using the same for storing fuel wood and also to go to answer the call of nature as a matter of right. Defendants also claimed that they have become owners by way of adverse possession.