LACHHMAN Vs. ISHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 15.5.1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Bilaspur whereby the appeal of respondent -plaintiff No. 1 Ishwar Singh was allowed and his suit for possession in regard to Khasra No. 297 was decreed by setting aside the decree and judgment dated 12.2.1986 of Senior Sub -Judge, Bilaspur in which it was held that the appellants -defendants and pro forma respondents -defendants had acquired valid title over the land of this Khasra number by adverse possession. The cross -appeal filed by one of the appellants -defendants, namely, Lachhman Singh was also partly allowed in respect of Khasra No. 331 and decree and judgment dated 12.2.1986 of Senior Sub -Judge was modified holding that Ishwar Singh was entitled to possession of Khasra No. 331 on payment of Rs. 500/ - as mortgage money. The Senior Sub -Judge had passed decree for possession of Khasra No. 331 in favour of Ishwar Singh and against the defendants without payment.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Ishwar Singh had filed civil suit for possession of two pieces of land, one measuring 1 -18 Bighas comprised in Khasra No. 331 and another measuring 4 -14 Bighas comprised in Khasra No. 297 situated in village Lakhanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur (hereinafter called the land in dispute) on the allegations that the defendants had taken forcible possession thereof eleven years ago and in league with the Revenue Staff got themselves recorded in possession "BILA SHIFTH". Denying these allegations the defence set up by the defendants was three -fold. Firstly, that their father Kapura and after his death they have been non -occupancy tenant; secondly, by agreement dated 31.5.1967 mortgage was created in favour of their father Kapura for consideration of Rs. 500/ - and thirdly, they acquired ownership in January 1970 for consideration of Rs. 3,000/ - by sale since when they have been continuing as owner in possession of the land in dispute. In the alternative, the plea of adverse possession was also taken claiming that their possession has been open, continuous and hostile for more than 14 years. The preliminary objection of limitation and no cause of action was also preferred. In rejoinder Ishwar Singh denied the pleas of tenancy and mortgage of Khasra No. 331 for Rs. 500/ -; sale of the whole of the land in dispute for Rs. 3,000/ - as well as that of adverse possession, and it was prayed that if a part of the land was proved to be mortgaged with the defendants, the same might be redeemed without payment as the defendants have received double benefit than the mortgage money by way of produce from the land.

(3.) Both the Courts below have concurrently rejected the plea of tenancy relying upon the revenue record to which presumption of truth is attached and defendants had not led any evidence to rebut the same except the bald statement of one of them, namely, Lachhman Singh.