KEWAL SINGH & OTHERS Vs. SAVITRI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for possession , qua the suit khasra number(s) , was, hence dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession of the land measuring 41-00 sq. meters, comprising Khewat No.238 min, Khatauni No.577, Khasra Nos. 1759 and 1760, situated in UP Mahal Basdehra Brahmna, Village Basdehra, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. It is pleaded by the plaintiffs that the suit land is owned and possessed by them and the defendants have no right, title or interest thereon. It is averred that during the settlement operation in the village, the defendants, procured wrong entries, showing them in possession over the suit land. However, such entries have been effected in the absence and without notice of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the revenue entries in favour of the defendants are wrong and illegal. It is on the basis of the said wrong revenue entries, the defendants have encroached upon the suit land near about six months back and they have raised construction in khasra No.1760 and opened the doors towards Khasra N.1759. It is averred that the defendants are again threatening to cover the whole area of the suit land. All these illegal acts are being done by the defendants despite the request being made by the plaintiffs for not doing such things. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have denied that the plaintiffs ever owned and possessed the suit land. It is claimed that the suit land was never part of presettlement of Khasra No.624. On the other hand, it is asserted that this was a part of old khasra No.621 and where there are old abadies of the defendants. It is admitted that the settlement authorities have recorded wrong revenue entries in the record. They are in possession of the suit land for the last more than 20 years. In the alternative, it is submitted that if the suit land is not found to be part of old khasra number 621, then they have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession.