- (1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration was decreed and further appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court has been dismissed by the first Appellate Court.
(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent filed the instant suit seeking declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land, on the averments that the suit land was owned and possessed by Gurdeep Singh son of Sadhu Singh son of Kehar Singh resident of Bua Nangali, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. Said Gurdeep Singh appointed one Hira Singh son of Joginder Singh as his General Attorney vide registered power of attorney dated 25.3.2004 and sold the land in question to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.2,02,000/ - vide sale deed dated 25.3.2004 and delivered the possession thereof. Since the purchase of the land, the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land and the defendant had got no right, title or interest in any part of the land in question, but they were wrongly claiming themselves to have purchased the suit land and are claiming possession thereof.
(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the defendants have not disclosed the particulars/details of any alleged sale in their favour. Moreover, the plaintiff had purchased the land for a valuable consideration and as such, the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the suit land bona fidely and his possession is also protected under the law and in the alternative, in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property, he is entitled to possession. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and raising various preliminary objections. It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that possession of the defendants is adverse, hostile, notorious and open to the whole world and they have become owners of the suit land. It was further submitted on their behalf that they were entitled to specific performance of contract dated 4.8.1994 and their possession was protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that the plaintiff has got no cause of action against them.;