- (1.) This shall dispose of RSA No. 3180 of 2011 Kalu Ram and another vs. Balbir Singh and others and COCP No. 138 of 2012 Kalu Ram and another vs. Balbir Singh and others as the COCP is filed against the interim orders passed in RSA No. 3180 of 2011. The present appeal has been filed by defendants no. 1 and 3, who are aggrieved against the suit for mandatory injunction being decreed in favour of the plaintiffs whereby they were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property.
(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was that the defendants are liable to vacate the land comprising in khasra No. 550(2-16) in the Revenue Estate of Village Shutrana consisting of three kacha rooms and six pucca rooms on account of the fact that they had raised construction and defendant-Kalu Ram was allowed to reside with his family in one kacha room and one pacca room and similarly the other three defendants also had been allowed to reside in the rooms as licensees. It was contended that the license was revoked three months ago and the defendants were requested to vacate the premises and having failed to do so, the defendants were in unauthorized possession and were liable to be ejected.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement in which they took various preliminary objections including maintainability of the suit, concealment of true facts, non-producing of proper site plan. The defendants also took the plea of adverse possession and that they had entered in possession and raised construction over the respective houses and even electric connection had been got issued by Ram Divaya defendant, by Sat Pal in the name of Shakuntala Devi and the defendants were old residents of the village and not in possession as licensees. It was contended that the land underneath the house of the defendants was lying vacant and the defendants had taken forcible possession and constructed the house and nobody had objected. Thus they were entitled to continue in possession and they had become owners by way of adverse possession. It was thus pleaded that the plaintiffs had wrongly claimed the construction upon the land under the possession of the defendants and the defendant-Lalji had spend thousands of rupees in constructing the shed for the cattle and the boundary wall and the construction was raised in January 1990. Defendant-Sat Pal had raised the construction in April 1990 as the earlier construction was uprooted due to floods in the village whereas Ram Divaya had raised construction in December 1989 whereas Kalu Ram had raised one pacca room and one kacha room in December 1991.;