- (1.) LRs of defendant are in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for possession of 15 marlas of land. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Sohan Singh filed the suit for possession of 12 marlas of land forming Western portion of 15 kanals 02 marlas of land compromised in khasra No.2366/2016/1 to 3 (15-2) of Khata No.170/260, situated in village Dhadiala, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur according to the jamabandi for the year 2002-03. In the alternative, suit for possession of that much area out of khasra number mentioned above, which may be found encroached by the defendant after measurement and demarcation. The case of the plaintiff is that he is exclusive owner of the land measuring 15 kanals 02 marlas and land of the defendant is situated adjacent to the suit land towards Western side. It has been alleged that defendant has encroached upon 12 marlas of land which forms part of Western portion of 15 kanals 2 marlas of land about two years back and has included the same in his own holding after demolishing the embankment. It has been asserted that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land and is liable to surrender the possession of that land to the plaintiff. Along with this prayer, a further prayer in the alternative is also made that in case the some more land is also found encroached, it may also be considered for seeking possession thereof.
(2.) On being issued notice, defendant-appellant contested the suit thereby taking all the customary objections of concealment of material facts, without cause of action, suit is not maintainable in the present form, plaintiff is estopped by his acts and conduct and the suit being barred by principle of res judicata under Order 2 Rule 2 and Under Section 23 Rule 1 of CPC.
(3.) On merits, the defendant has averred that the plaintiff is not exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and the entries made in the revenue record are null and void and rather liable to be corrected. The plea of encroachment has been denied, and it has also been denied that the defendant has ever demolished any common embankment. Additionally, it has been claimed that if any area is found in possession of the defendant, then the defendant has become owner in possession of that area by way of adverse possession as the possession of defendant is hostile to the very knowledge of the plaintiff and he is in continuous possession for the last more than 40 years without any kind of obstructions and hindrance thereof from the side of the plaintiff. Therefore, the possession of the defendant has ripened into ownership by way of adverse possession and defendant is not liable to surrender the possession of the land in question in favour of the plaintiff. Replication was also filed by the plaintiff-respondent, reiterating the pleas raised in the plaint.;