KAMLA DEVI Vs. RAJINDER THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants' becoming aggrieved, by the concurrently recorded verdict(s), against them, by both the learned Courts below, hence for striving, to, beget reversal thereof, rather institute thereagainst, the, instant Regular Second Appeal, hence before this Court.

(2.) The appeal came up for admission, before this Court, on, 28.6.2010, and stood admitted, on, the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) In Jamabandi(s) appertaining to the suit land, and, respectively borne in Ext. PB, and in Ext. PC, hence make valid displays vis-vis, the plaintiffs, becoming echoed therein, as owners, in, possession, thereof. The acquisition of right, title or interest, hence by the plaintiffs, vis-vis, the suit khasra Nos., was through, a, registered deed of conveyance, made, vis-vis, them, hence, by, one Dhani Ram. The afore executed, and, unchallenged hence registered deed of conveyance, rather by Dhani Ram, vis-vis, the plaintiffs, occurs, subsequent, to, the completest execution, of, warrants of possession, for, therethrough(s) naturally efficacious execution, becoming completedly enforced, vis-vis, the apt binding and conclusive decree, becoming, hence rendered, in, a litigation interse, the, afore Dhani Ram, and, one Chaman Lal. The apt warrant(s), of, possession, as, evident, from Ext. PH, exhibit whereof, is, the report of the Bailiff concerned, hence, make echoing(s) qua therethrough rather possession of the suit property, becoming handed over, from one Chaman Lal to the afore Dhani Ram, the vendor, of, the plaintiff. A perusal of Ext. PH, also makes, a, vivid disclosure, qua after demolition, of, a two storeyed building, standing upon the suit land, hence, the, apt vacant possession, of, the disputed khasra No, becoming handed over to Dhani Ram, the, vendor, of, the plaintiffs. The factum, of, a construction becoming, upon, the suit land rather, raised by the Judgment Debtor, in, execution petition No. 27-x of 1993, petition whereof, became instituted, for, enforcing, the, apt binding and conclusive decree, made upon, civil suit No. 40 of 1985, titled, as "Dhani Ram versus Chaman Lal", is, also vividly echoed, in, the deposition, of, DW-2. However, the learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved defendants, has, contended before this Court, that, the afore construction existing, on the suit khasra Nos, and, as raised, by the afore Chaman Lal, and qua wherewith, a binding, and, conclusive decree, was pronounced, upon him, for, his, handing over vacant possession thereof, to, Dhani Ram, the vendor of the plaintiff, (i) and also despite, the, afore decree, becoming completely executed against Chaman Lal, yet, the disputed hereat construction, as raised, upon, the suit land, by, the defendants, rather remaining un-established, to become raised, at, the relevant site, qua wherewith, a, binding and conclusive decree, was, rendered in Civil suit No. 40, of, 1985 (ii) and also, hence the completest execution thereof, as, echoed in Ext. PH, rather not de-facilitating, the, defendants, to, make a contention, from, adduced cogent oral evidence, qua theirs acquiring title, through, adverse possession, vis-vis, the structure raised, upon, the suit land, and, also espouse qua rather the meteing, of, irreverence thereto, hence by both the learned Courts below, hence becoming un-tenable. However, the afore submission, is, rudderless, given (a) despite the JD, in execution petition No. 27-x of 1993, becoming served, and, also his making, a, valid participation, in, the relevant proceedings, drawn, in the afore, has yet evidently neither resisted nor obstructed, the, execution, of, the apposite decree, through, his espousing, vis-vis, the defendants, hereat rather holding, the, apt possession(s) thereof, (b) nor also, the defendants', despite, the Officer appointed by the executing Court, hence reporting, vis-vis, the latter qua his making the, completest execution, of, the binding and conclusive decree, made, upon Civil Suit No. 40 of 1985, hence visibly made any protest or remonstrance(s) before him, or before the learned executing Court, vis-vis, the binding and conclusive decree, becoming un-amenable, for execution, vis-vis, them, (c) given theirs, rather holding evident possession thereof, (d) nor the defendants, thereafter, through casting, a, motion under, the provisions, of, Order 21 Rule 27 of the CPC, hence, before the learned executing Court, rather attempted, to, obstruct the completest execution, of, the binding, and, conclusive decree, rendered, upon, afore Chaman Lal, in a suit titled as "Dhani Ram versus Chaman Lal". The effects, of the afore wants, emphatically hence firmly estop, and, also completely bar, the, defendants hereat, to contend, that other, than the structure raised by Chaman Lal, over, the suit khasra Nos, any other structure existed, rather thereons, hence prior to the year 1984, (e) nor also are empowered, to, make any further contention, that, with the statutorily prescribed period of 12 months, elapsing since then, upto the institution of the suit, hence, their throughouts' therewith(s) hence, possession(s), vis-vis, the suit land, rather with, the, requisite animus possidendi, hence becoming ripened, into, absolute title(s) thereon. The effect of the afore estoppels, working against the defendants, also, rather engenders an inference, qua the structure, if any, raised by the defendants, upon the suit property, becoming raised, subsequent, to, the execution, of, the unchallenged registered deed of conveyance, interse Dhani Ram, and, the plaintiff, and, when thereafter, upto, the institution, of, the apt extant suit, the statutory ordained, hence apposite period, of, limitation, remains rather un-expired/ uncompleted, thereupon also the afore espousal becomes rudderless.