ROSHAN LAL Vs. VIPIN KUMAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit for rendition of a declaratory decree, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra numbers, stood, affirmatively decreed by the learned trial Court, and, in an appeal carried therefrom, by, the aggrieved defendants, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court also affirmed the verdict pronounced by the learned trial Court. The defendants/appellants, being aggrieved therefrom, hence, motion this Court, through, the instant Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner in possession and with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering over the suit land detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff further claimed that the revenue entries qua the ownership and possession over the suit land comprised Khasra No.1250 and the entries of ownership over Khasra No.1251 with defendants are wrong, illegal and collusive.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objection qua maintainability, jurisdiction and locus standi etc.. On merits, the defendants have denied any right, title or interest of the plaintiff over the suit land as the defendants have denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any capacity including tenancy as pleaded in the plaint. The defendants have further pleaded and claimed that father of the plaintiff had relinquished his tenancy rights orally in favour of the defendants during his life time and handed over the vacant possession, since then, the defendants have pleaded and claimed to be owner in possession of the suit land and has further claimed and pleaded that the plaintiff forcibly trespassed over part of suit land comprised in Khasra No.1251 in July, 1990, but the defendants have denied any tenancy of the plaintiff over the suit land. The defendants have further pleaded and claimed that the entry during settlement was found to be incorrect as the possession of the defendants was found over the suit land and thereby the proper entry has been incorporated during settlement. However, the defendants have pleaded and claimed that he name of the plaintiff in column of possession on part of the suit land being encroacher has been recorded during settlement in connivance with settlement staff as the plaintiff has trespassed over the part of the suit land after the withdrawal of the previous suit by the present defendant. The defendants have specifically pleaded and claimed that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor-ininterest has ever remained in possession over the suit land in any capacity during the pendency and thereby have pleaded and claimed that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit land.