- (1.) Defendants/appellants are in second appeal against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below, whereby suit for possession filed by the respondents has been decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Samrala vide its judgment and decree dated 28.10.2006 and the findings thereof have been affirmed in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide its judgment and decree dated 28.01.2012.
(2.) Brief facts for proper adjudication of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellants/defendants for possession of one house/shop with boundaries as mentioned in the plaint. It was mentioned that suit property was owned and possessed by one Gandhila Singh. After his death his three sons namely Jagir Singh, Kaka Singh and Bachan Singh inherited his property. Bachan Singh expired in the year 1976 and his share in the property was inherited by his sons Harnek Singh, Baghel Singh and Bahadur Singh. It was in this way that the plaintiffs (descendants of Gandhila) averred themselves to be joint owners of the property in dispute. One Jit Singh son of Naranjan Singh son of Ram Ditta was put into possession of the suit property as licencee as the plaintiffs were not in a position to manage or maintain the same and Gandhila Singh was also having good relations with Jit Singh. Thereafter, the defendants started claiming themselves to be in hostile possession of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs terminated the licence of the defendants/appellants through valid notice dated 23.08.1996 and, therefore, the present suit for possession.
(3.) Upon notice, defendants/appellants filed written statement, inter alia, pleading that the present suit is barred by res judicata as the predecessors of the plaintiff filed a civil suit no.148 dated 19.06.1952 which was decreed on 19.08.1952 titled as "Gandhila Singh Vs. Inderjit Singh and others" decided by the court of Civil Judge, Samrala. The defendants claimed themselves to be successors in interest of this Inderjit Singh and the plaintiffs are the successors in interest of Gandhila Singh. It was thus pleaded that they have become owners of the disputed property by way of adverse possession as they have been in hostile possession of the property for the past 50 years. It was further stated that since the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff did not file any execution for possession, therefore, the rights of the defendants have culminated into a valid title. On merits, the ownership of Gandhila Singh and thereafter by his sons was admitted. It was further admitted that Bachan had died and his property was succeeded by his sons. It was denied that Jit Singh son of Naranjan Singh was put into possession as licencee. It was rather stated that he came into possession after the death of Inderjit Singh son of Beer Chand. Thus it was stated that the defendants are not the licencees and, therefore, their licence cannot be terminated through the impugned notice. Hence prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.;