SATYA SWAROOP GOTHWAL Vs. GAINDI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both appeals parties are common and disputed property as well as issue involved is also identical, therefore, with consent of both counsel for appellants have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) In appeal No.142/2012, predecessor of appellants namely Nanagchand (Nanak Chand) has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondent Gaindi Devi in the year 1998. Plaintiff- Nanagchand while assailing patta bearing No.468 dtd. 8/4/1976 of defendant, claimed his ownership by way of adverse possession and prayed for decree of permanent injunction. The trial Court found that plaintiff was in permissive possession through defendant who was found owner of suit property by virtue of patta dtd. 8/4/1976 and accordingly plaintiffs' suit was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 18/4/2006. Plaintiffs assailed judgment dtd. 18/4/2006 by way of filing first appeal which has been dismissed on merits vide judgment dtd. 20/1/2012, hence, against concurrent findings of fact and dismissal of plaintiffs' suit by the two Courts below, this second appeal has been preferred.

(3.) In second appeal No.468/2019, Respondent-Gaindi Devi filed civil suit for possession against predecessors of appellants namely Nanagchand on 6/12/2007 claiming inter alia that property in question was allotted through patta No.468 dtd. 8/4/1976 issued by Gram Panchayat in favour of Bheru Ram and she is daughter of Bheru Ram, hence, she has acquired ownership after death of Bheru Ram. Possession of Nanagchand was claimed as licensee and on termination of license, she filed suit for possession. The trial Court, vide judgment dtd. 21/8/2013 decreed the suit for possession against Nanagchand along with mesne profit @ Rs.600.00 per month. Challenge to the judgment and decree for possession and mesne profit dtd. 21/8/2013 was made by way of first appeal and first Appellate Court, after rehearing of matter has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the first appeal vide judgment dtd. 29/5/2019. Hence, against both judgments and decree for possession, this second appeal has been filed by the appellantsdefendants.