JAGIR SINGH Vs. GURMEL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the courts below have non-suited the appellant in respect of his claim pertaining to ownership as well as possession over the suit property for the last more than 50 years. The suit filed by him was for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing him therefrom.

(2.) The respondents, who mostly consist of brothers or nephews of the appellant denied his claim, by pleading that they all (including the appellant) are in joint possession, as co-sharers of the suit property which was jointly constructed by them. The learned trial court, on the basis of the evidence which had come on record, found no merit in the claim of the appellant and dismissed the suit. The first appellate court, too, did not differ with the trial court, affirmed its verdict, and dismissed the appeal. The conclusion drawn by the trial court was that, "so the plaintiff has no right to protect possessory title as possession of the plaintiff has not been proved on the file." Similarly, the learned first appellate court, after appreciating the evidence, observed that, "the conclusion drawn by this Court is that plaintiff could not prove the possession over the suit property nor he has proved his title over the suit property."

(3.) The two courts have drawn the said conclusion, after scrutinising the testimony of the appellant (PW2) and his witness Balwinder Singh (PW1), wherein it is to be found that the suit property is shamlat property. Moreover, the appellant had filed a private criminal complaint against the respondents, during the trial of which he admitted, in his statement recorded in court on 2.12.1999, certified copy Ex.D1, that possession of the property in question had been taken by the respondentsherein (accused in the complaint).