PIAR CHAND Vs. RAKESH KUMAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. dated 4.9.2010, passed in RBT Civil Appeal No. 57G/X/III/2010/2006.

(2.) Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have filed a suit against the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for vacant possession of the suit land, as detailed in the plaint. According to the averments made in the plaint, prior to the consolidation, Kh. number of the suit land was 1757 which was converted into new Kh. No. 1801. The defendants' predecessor Nikku Ram filed a Civil Suit No. 4 of 1985 before the Sub Judge, Dehra for declaration on the basis of tenancy and in the alternative adverse possession was also pleaded. The suit of the predecessor of the defendants was dismissed on 6.4.1985. The predecessor of the defendants was not held to be tenant and no right of adverse possession accrued to the predecessor of the defendants. The defendants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.4.1985 before the learned Addl. District Judge (I), Kangra bearing No. 66 of 1985. The learned Addl. District Judge (I), Kangra vide judgment dated 22.4.1989 partly allowed the appeal and held that the predecessor of the defendants was trespasser. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed RSA No. 292/1989 against the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court dated 22.4.1989 before this Court. This Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court. The defendants have forcibly raised the tin posh shed with pucca bricks over the suit property.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. In the written statement, the defendants have raised the plea of adverse possession. According to them, they were in possession of the suit land and prior to them, their father Nikku Ram was in peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers. The construction has been raised on Kh. Nos. 1802, 1803 and 1800 being possessed by the defendants. The structure is in Kh. Nos. 1803 and 1804 and not on the suit property. According to them, they were in peaceful, open and hostile possession of the suit property for the last more than 70 years.