- (1.) Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession of plot No.15 situated in residential area of Nurmahal, Mohalla Sohlan, bounded as under:- "North :- Plot No.14 at present in possession of Bhola Ram, South:-Hindu property at present in possession of Muni Lal, East:- Rasta (street) West:- Plot No.6 at present in the possession of Bakshi Tailor Master."
(2.) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was owner of the house in dispute which had been purchased by him on 20.12.1963. The plaintiff was in possession of the said property from the date of its purchase. However, the defendant had taken forcible possession of the suit land. In the year 1981, the defendant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff qua the suit property. The said suit was decreed by the Court vide judgment/ decree dated 27.3.1982 and the present plaintiff was restrained from dispossessing the present defendant from the suit property except in due course of law. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant, in his written statement, took up preliminary objection No. 'B' as under:- "That the site plan attached with the plaint is incorrect and also as mentioned in the head note of the plaint showing the description particularly when the plots number etc. is incorrect and the correct site plan shall be produced. It is submitted in this context that the alleged sale certificate does not confirm any title as alleged dated 20.12.1963 and is a false, fictitious documents as the said property was not put to any compensation or was not the evacuee property. Even if it is established that some sale certificate was issued on 20.7.1963, it is submitted in this context that the plaintiff has not taken the possession within 12 years prior to the institution of the suit, therefore, he has lost the right to take possession within the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Section 27 of the Limitation Act. Moreover, the defendant has become owner by adverse possession as the possession of the defendant was open, hostile and adverse to the title to that of the plaintiff."
(3.) On merits, the contentions in the plaint were denied. It was averred that the defendant was in possession of the suit property for the last 30 years and had become owner by way of adverse possession. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house in dispute by way of purchase as alleged in para No.1 of the plaintiff, if so, its effect OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit OPD 3. Whether the defendant has become owner of the house in dispute by way of adverse possession OPD 4.Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction OPD 5. Relief.";