NAND LAL Vs. GIRJA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the suit khasra number(s), was, hence decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is in actual physical possession of the suit land where he has planted apple orchard. Old Khasra number of the suit land prior to settlement was 78 and recorded in physical possession of father of the plaintiff and his uncle.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein he has pleaded that the father of the defendant Chandu Lal, vide sale deed of 8/3/1967, purchased land borne in Khasra Nos. 62, 68, 71, 73, 77 and 158, measuring 12-11 bhighas, along with double storeyed house for Rs.6000.00 from Hira and Parma Nand, predecessor-in-interest, of the plaintiff. Parma Nand and Hira at that time also entered into an agreement of sale of Khasra No.78 with Chandu Lal for consideration of Rs.600.00, which was paid. Chandu Lal was put in possession of Khasra No.78, i.e. the suit land under the agreement dtd. 28/4/1975. They had agreed to covey title to Chandu Lal by executing a sale deed after obtaining necessary permission. After death of Chandu Lal defendant is in possession of the suit land since 1976. So, possession of the plaintiff qua the suit land is denied. He claimed having planted apple orchard Revenue entries to the contrary are wrong. Plaintiff and his predecessor had been acknowledging defendant to be owner of the suit land. In the alternative defendant pleaded qua theirs having acquired title to the suit land by way of adverse possession.