KALAN DEVI Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge The present regular second appeal has been 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 21.03.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 210/13 of 2004/1999, whereby the judgment and Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. decree, dated 26.04.1999, passed by learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. 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 filed a suit against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter to be called as "the defendant"), seeking declaration and possession of land measuring 0.12 biswas, comprised in Khata/Khatouni No. 5/6, Khasra No. 60, situated in village Bhagot, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (hereinafter to be called as the "suit land"), wherein it has been averred that previously Bihari Lal, brother of the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land, who was unmarried and after his death, the plaintiff had inherited his property including the suit land, whereas, the defendant is shown as non-occupancy tenant thorough Saju Devi, widow of late Fithu, who died about eight years back. It has been further averred that after the death of Saju Devi, the defendant in connivance with the revenue officials, got his name entered as non-occupancy tenant in the suit land and forcibly occupied the land about 5-6 years back, as such, the entries in favour of the defendant in the revenue record are wrong and illegal.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant by filing written statement, wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, limitation and estoppal have been taken. On merits, it has been averred that Bihari Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff never remained in possession of the suit land. In fact, Saju had become owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession prior to consolidation operation and during consolidation operation in the year 1961-62, the consolidation authorities had alloted the suit land to her It has been further averred that Saju vide Gift Deed, dated 22.02.1968 had gifted her entire property including the suit land in favour of the defendant and since then, the defendant has been owner in possession of the same. The defendant has also claimed that he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.