MANSHO Vs. SANEHRO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-11-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in civil appeal No. 20-N/13 of 1995/93.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs' for convenience sake) filed a suit for possession in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No, 195 measuring 0-7 bighas situated in village Shalana, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh on the averment that the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants' for convenience sake) took the forcible possession of the land in suit with the help of villagers and started construction thereof in the month of July, 1989. The suit was contested by the defendants. It is denied by the defendants that they took forcible possession of the suit land in the month of July, 1989. According to them the house was constructed by their father about 50 years back. The learned Sub-Judge passed a decree for recovery of possession by way of demolition of structure over the land comprised in khasra No. 195 min. measuring 0-2 bis was The defendants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 22-5-1993. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and the judgment and decree dated 22-5-1993 was set aside. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 21-11-1997. It will be pertinent to mention here that though the Regular Second Appeal was admitted on 21-4-1998, however, the attention of the Court was not drawn at that stage to the substantial questions annexed with the memorandum of appeal. In these circumstances, the appeal shall be deemed to have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law annexed with the memorandum of appeal:

(3.) Mr. K. S. Kanwar, Advocate has vehemently argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned 1 st appellate Court is not sustainable. He has strenuously argued that the learned Additional District Judge has not properly construed the oral as well as documentary evidence.