LAWS(J&K)-1978-9-11

DHARMARTH TRUST Vs. GH MOHD DRABU

Decided On September 06, 1978
Dharmarth Trust Appellant
V/S
Gh Mohd Drabu Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for possession of land, measuring 8 kanals, comprising khasra Nos. 1558/min, 1559/min, 1569/min, 1561, 1562/min and 1573/min situate at Ram Bagh Narsingh Garh, Tehsil Srinagar. The plaintiffs case is, that besides 4 kanals of land which was leased out to defendant No. 2, the defendants started making encroachment on other adjacent land of the plaintiff from October, 1958 onwards. In the first instance, they took forcible possession of 6 kanals 14 marlas, and thereafter, 1 kanal 6 marlas to make a total of 8 kanals. Criminal prosecution of the defendants, for the aforesaid acts of trespass, is pending in the court of Additional Munsiff, Magistrate Srinagar, and a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent, in respect of 4 kanals of land, is also pending against defendant No. 2. The suit land, goes the plaintiff to allege is owned by it, and was in its possession till October, 1958. It is, according to the plaintiff, not an agricultural land, and is on the other hand, used for residential and commercial purposes.

(2.) The defendants have expressed complete ignorance of the ownership of the plaintiff, besides denying the allegation, that 4 kanals of land was over leased out by the plaintiff to defendant No. 2. They have further stated, that they are in possession of the entire land, measuring 12 kanals, in their own right, as owners for the last twenty five years, and their possession has ripened into ownership, by virtue of its being adverse to the real owner. They have further pleaded, that the suit is barred by time, and the suit land was not adequately described in the plaint.

(3.) ON a consideration of the pleadings of the parties the court, on October 18, 1966, framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is the proprietor of the land in suit? 0. P. P. 2. Whether the suit is not barred by Article 142 of the Limitation Act? O.P.P. 3. Whether the defendants have acquired title to the suit properties by prescription as alleged by them? O.P.D.