SURAT RAM Vs. MOHAN LAL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant having lost in both the Courts below has filed the second appeal assailing judgment, decree dated 04.06.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, in Civil Appeal No. 102-S/13 of 1999 affirming judgment, decree dated 10.11.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge, Theog, in case No. 144-1 of 1997.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that appellant had filed a suit for declaration that he has become owner of the land denoted by Khasra No.216, measuring 0-19-17 hectares, Chak Chounri, the contrary revenue entries are wrong and illegal. The consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction was also prayed restraining the respondents from interfering over the suit land. The appellant pleaded 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment Yes that his father purchased land comprised in Khasra Nos. 211, 214, 215, 219, 221 etc. from one Smt. Belkoo in the year 1957, who delivered the possession of the land which was in her possession at the time of sale. Smt. Belkoo was also in possession of part of old Khasra No. 394 which has been given Khasra No. 216 in the settlement. Smt. Belkoo also handed over possession of part of Khasra No. 394 to the father of appellant along with land which was actually sold by her. The land after purchase was developed by father of the appellant. It transpires during settlement that part of Khasra No. 394 is in possession of appellant and remaining part of Khasra No. 394 denoted by Khasra No. 574 is in possession of respondents. The appellant has pleaded that he has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession.

(3.) The suit was contested by respondents by filing separate written statement. They denied that Smt. Belkoo was in possession of the suit land and she delivered possession of the suit land to the father of the appellant when he purchased some land from her. They denied that plaintiff has raised orchard over the suit land. It has been stated that Khasra No. 394 was purchased by the father of the respondents along with other land over which the father of the respondents had raised orchard. The Khasra No. 394 was gifted to respondents and mutation dated 09.06.1970 was attested to this effect. It has been denied that a part of Khasra No. 394 during settlement was found in possession of appellant. The adverse possession of appellant has been denied by taking the plea that question of adverse possession does not arise as the appellant is not in possession of the suit land. The objections of cause of action, limitation and jurisdiction were also taken.