- (1.) THIS is yet another glaring example, where an unscrupulous and dishonest litigant has been trying to grab the public property, by adopting every possible illegal method.
(2.) PRESENT appeal, at the instance of defendant, is directed against concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits filed by the plaintiff -Municipal Committee was partly decreed.
(3.) THE brief resume of the case of plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint is that the suit land is part of Nabha Fort and falls within the municipal limits of the committee. It is alleged that earlier the ownership of the suit land vested in Nabha State and in terms of the notification dated 17.5.1950 issued by the Secretary, Government of Erstwhile Pepsu State, the ownership of the suit land vests in the plaintiff/municipal Committee. It is alleged that the defendant was introduced as a tenant by the Horticulture Department of State of Punjab and subsequently the defendant started claiming himself to be the owner of the suit land. It is alleged that the defendant remained in possession of the suit land for the period 1969 -70 to 1974 -75 as lessee under the Horticulture Department as he was inducted as lessee in the public auction of the suit land. It is alleged that the defendant is claiming ownership of the suit land in terms of decree dated 2.12.1998 passed in Civil Suit no.362/9.10.1987 by the court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Nabha, but the plaintiff/committee has not been impleaded as party in the said suit and said decree has been obtained by the defendant by committing fraud claiming adverse possession. It is alleged that the plaintiff requested the defendant several times to hand over the possession and to pay mesne profits for enjoyment of the suit land being illegal occupation of the suit land but he has refused to do so. On the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement by alleging that the plaintiff/municipal committee is not owner of the suit land. It is alleged that the defendant is in possession of the suit land for the last more than 40 years and has become the owner by way of adverse possession and the notification dated 17.5.1950 is a paper transaction and is not valid. It is alleged that the State of Punjab filed ejectment application against the defendant under the provisions of Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Recovery) Act, 1973 which was dismissed in appeal by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, vide order dated 2.3.1979 holding that the defendant is not unauthorised occupant of the suit land and can not be evicted there from and said order was confirmed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. It is also alleged that the decree dated 2.12.1987 is legal and valid and can not be challenged in the present suit. Denying all other averments, the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.;