Vyom Prakash Gupta, J. - (1.)S/Shri Ishwar Dass and Om Prakash filed a suit for possession in respect to the property mentioned in the plaint on the allegations that they are the owners of tha disputed property and that the same was mortgaged with S/Shri Ganga Ram, Sant Ram and Salig Ram. In is alleged that the mortgage was redeemed by the plaintiffs on 26-1-1961. The plaintiffs have further alleged that Tara Chand defendant is in possession of the property in dispute as trespasser and he was never inducted as a tenant by the plaintiffs and if the said Tara Chand defendant had been inducted as a tenant by the mortgagees then this act of the mortgagees was mala fide and the plaintiffs are not bound by the said tenancy created by the mortgagees. This suit was filed in the court of the Senior Sub Judge, Dharamsala on 11-1-1967.
(2.)Defendant Tara Chand contested the suit and contended that the disputed land was given to the defendant's ancestors by plaintiffs' ancestors for residential purposes and that the defendant's father and grand-father in fact made constructions on this property and also improved the land. It was also alleged that the defendant is a permanent occupancy tenant of the land in dispute and is in possession of the same for the last more than 100 years and by virtue of Punjab Act 8 of 1953 has become its owner. The defendant also alleged that he is not a trespasser and is not liable to ejectment and that the plaintiffs had even accepted rent from him for two years on 20-12-1964. The plaintiffs were estopped by their act and conduct from filing the suit. The defendant also claimed adverse possession on the ground that from 15-6-1952 onwards he had become absolute owner of the property by virtue of Punjab Act 8 of 1953 and the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant also claimed damages in case of ejectment. Some other objections were also raised.
(3.)On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-
1. Is the suit correctly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? 2. Is the site plan correct? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
Are the plaintiffs estopped by their acts and conduct in bringing the suit? Whether any prior notice as alleged was necessary. If so, what is the effect of not serving it? Is the defendant a permanent occupancy tenant of the land in suit? Has the defendant become owner of the property in suit by adverse possession? Tara Chand vs. Ishwar Dass and Anr. (25.05.1981 -HPHC) Page 3 of 6 Tara Chand vs. Ishwar Dass and Anr. (25.05.1981 -HPHC) Page 3 of 6 Tara Chand vs. Ishwar Dass and Anr. (25.05.1981 -HPHC) Page 3 of 6 Whether the defendant is a trespasser? To what compensation, if any, is the defendant entitled in case of ejectment? Relief.
;