BOOTA RAM Vs. MUKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the respondents ­ plaintiffs ­ landlords, despite service.

(2.) THE present First Appeal has been filed by the defendant ­ tenant, Boota Ram against the judgment and decree of possession dated 31.07.1995 in Civil Suit No.33/94 {5/89} ­ Mukh Ram and Thakar Ram, both sons of Chhoga Ram vs. Boota Ram s/o Ganpat Ram of learned Additional District Judge, Hanumangarh in respect of a suit house situated in village Satipura, district Hanumangarh.

(3.) THE defendant ­ Boota Ram took the defence before the learned trial court that the plaintiffs have failed to produce the documentary evidence of mutual partition between Chhoga Ram and Hazari Ram and that the Patta ­ Ex.1 issued in their favour was forged and also that he had a long possession over the suit house for last 35 years and, thus, was residing there and, therefore, had become owner of the said property by the adverse possession and further the defendant took the defence that there was an Agreement to Sell in favour of the defendant dated 01.06.1982 Ex.A/2 and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree of possession.