HANUMAN RAM Vs. ANADA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the appellants, one of the appellants, Dhanna Ram father of Hanuman Ram filed one suit for possession being civil original No. 82/2004 against respondent Anada Ram, plaintiff of civil original No. 164/2004. said suit No. 82/2004 was withdrawn by Dhanna Ram on 4. 12. 2004. It will be relevant to mention here that on 4. 12. 04, it was submitted before the trial Court by the plaintiff in civil original No. 82/2004 that he will get justice through administrative authorities in the Abhiyan ``administration towards Villages'', therefore, the plaintiff wants to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh suit. On this plea, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with permission to file fresh suit by order dated 4. 12. 04.

(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the appellants, the earlier suit filed by Dhanna Ram, who was not the real owner of the property and in the present suit, Hanuman Ram is party who is the real owner of the property, therefore, withdrawal of suit by Dhanna Ram is of no consequence so far as against the interest of Hanuman Ram is concerned. It is also submitted that plaintiff Anada Ram did not gave the measurements of the plot from which he was dispossessed. It is also submitted that the trial Court, after considering the facts, rightly held that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession since last 60 years and did not disclose exact measurement of encroached land. ACCORDING to learned counsel for the appellants, the administrative authorities dispossessed Anada Ram as Anada Ram illegally encroached upon Hanuman Ram's plot and gave possession of the plot to the appellant, rightful owner, therefore, the plaintiff could not have been granted relief of possession against the rightful owner of the plot.