LAL CHAND Vs. KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated June 17, 1972, of the learned District Judge, Poonch, reversing the judgment and decree dated March 31, 1967, of the Sub Judge, Rajouri, dismissing Karim, Alaf Din and Mahboob plaintiffs -respondents suit No. 65 of 1964 for declaration to the effect that they were the owners of the land measuring ten Kanals and one Marlas comprised in Khasra No. 63 situate in village Doongi Brahmana, Tehsil Rajouri, and injunction restraining the appellant and his father Sunder from interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs alternatively prayed that in case the court came to the conclusion that they, were out of possession a decree for possession be passed in their favour. The suit was resisted by the appellant and his father Sunder, averring inter -alia that they had been in possession of the suit land since 2007, and that any sale thereof effected by Amar Nath in favour of the plaintiffs was void as Amar Nath was not its lawful owner.

(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the case: - (1) Whether plaintiff No. 3 was in possession of the land in dispute? O. P. on the plaintiffs. (2) In case Issue No. 1 is proved, whether the defendants were interfering in the possession of the plaintiff No. 3? O. P. on the plaintiffs. (3) Relief. On an assessment of the material on the record the trial court found that the statement of Chuni Lal Patwari, who was examinee has a court witness, established that the appellant and his father Sunder, were in possession of the suit land on the date of the institution of the suit i.e. on July 10, 1964. The trial court further came to the conclusion that the alternative prayer made by the plaintiffs for possession of the land was not tenable in view of Section 20 -B of the Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, under which the transfer of Kap land was prohibited. With these findings, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Aggrieved by this decision the plaintiffs went up in appeal to the learned District Judge, Poonch, who set aside the judgment and decree of the Sub Judge, Rajouri and passed a decree declaring the plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land on the date of the institution of the suit as also for injunction restraining the appellant and his father from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. It is against this judgment and decree that the present appeal is directed.

(3.) APPEARING in support of the appeal Mr. Sudhan has vehemently urged that the evidence adduced in the case has not been properly appreciated by the lower appellate court, that the conclusions arrived at by it are wholly unjustified and that from the plaintiffs own evidence it is amply proved that they were out of possession of the suit land on the date of the institution of the suit.