JEET RAM Vs. PRITAM SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant, who was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as "the plaintiff") , laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 30-CA/13 of 2003, whereby the judgment and decree, dated 24.03.2003, passed by learned Sub Judge, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P, in Civil Suit No. 131/1 of 2001, was affirmed, wherein suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts, which are necessary for determination and adjudication of the present appeal, are that the plaintiff claimed himself to be co-owner in possession of the land, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 580/983, Khasra No. 109, measuring 12 Biswas, situated in Mauza Khagani, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (hereinafter to be called as the "suit land") . As per the plaintiff, the respondents/defendants (hereinafter to be called as "the defendants") have no right, title or interest in the suit land. Further the defendants are trying to raise forcible construction by digging the foundation in the suit land, which leads the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction, by restraining the defendants from raising forcible construction on the suit land.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants by filling written statement, wherein it has been averred that neither the plaintiff, nor his predecessors-in-interest were ever remained in possession of the suit land as tenant. The suit land is a Gair Mumkin Abadi and since 35 years, there have been residential houses of the defendants and they have become owners by way of adverse possession. Lastly, they averred that proprietary rights upon the plaintiff and others, under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, are illegal, collusive and fraudulent and prayed for dismissal of the suit.