N.C. Jain, J. - (1.) Plaintiff -Respondent filed a suit for possession of land measuring 3 Kanals 6 Marias, fully described in the heading of the plaint and as shown in Jamabandi for the year 1980 -81 (Exhibit PI). It has been averred in the plaint that the aforementioned land was owned by the Plaintiff. The disputed land was neither acquired by the Defendants nor any compensation was paid and the Defendants constructed stores over the suit land without any right, taking advantage of the old age of the Plaintiff. The Defendants were described as trespassers. The defence of the Defendant -Appellants was that the suit land along with other land measuring IS Kanals 15 Marias was acquired by the Punjab State, in terms of the award dated 19 -11 -1970, and that the aforementioned land measuring 15 Kanals 15 Marias including the disputed land was sold to Defendant No. 1 by negotiation by the Rehabilitation Department, for a total consideration' of Rs. 1,59,000/ -. It was farther averred by the Defendants in the written statement that the sale consideration was deposited by Defendant No. 1 in the Treasury. The possession of the land was delivered to Defendant No. 1 by the Halqa Patwari. On July 28, 1971. The suit was described not to be within time and it was further stated that the Plaintiff was estopped by his act and conduct, because he did not raise any objection, at the time of construction. The plea of adverse possession was also taken.
(2.) On the rival pleas of the parties, the following issues were farmed: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is owner of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is within time? OPP. 3. Whether Defendant No. 1 had become owner by adverse possession? OPD. 4. Whether the Plaintiff is estopped to sue by his act and conduct? OPD. 5. Relief.
(3.) Under issue No. 1, the trial Court held the Plaintiff to be the owner of the suit land and decided issue No. 1, in favour of the Plaintiff. Under issues No. 2 and 3, the suit was held to be time barred and the Defendants were held to have become owners by adverse possession. Issue No. 4 was also decided by the trial Court, in favour of the Defendants and it was held that the Plaintiff was estopped by his act and conduct, from filing the suit. The Plaintiff -Respondent filed appeal before the first appellate court , which has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, vide his impugned judgment and decree dated 17 -11 -1988.;