T.P.S.MANN,J. - (1.) SUIT for permanent injunction filed by M/s. Malik Singh Mehar Singh for restraining the defendants, namely, Bhupinder Singh, Gurvinder Singh and Maninder Singh and their employees, agents and assignees from interfering in any manner in its peaceful possession as owner of the property, as described in the heading of the plaint and from raising any type of construction over any part of the vacant land of the said property, was decreed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Pathankot vide its judgment dated 24.8.1995. The appeal filed by two out of the three defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide its judgment dated 1.12.2000. Hence, the present second appeal.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was that it had let out its shops situated on the suit property to various tenants. Some portion of the suit property was lying vacant. Portion of the suit property marked by letters K F M N shown as red in the site plan, annexed with the plaint, was in occupation of Public Health Department as tenant, but was recently vacated. The said portion had not been rented out by the plaintiff and thus, lying vacant. Portion marked by letters E K L M shown red in the site plan comprising of double storey residential complex was in self-occupation of the plaintiff except for a portion on the ground floor, where Bhupinder Singh-defendant was living along with his family as licensee, being a close relative of the partners of the plaintiff-firm. The plaintiff had left a portion on the southern side of the suit property as a passage for approach to their adjoining property. However, the defendants were pressing the plaintiff to alienate one of its shops in their favour without any consideration. They had started openly threatening to encroach upon vacant portions of the suit property and raise constructions. As they remain adamant in doing so, the plaintiff firm filed the present civil suit. The defendants opposed the suit of the plaintiff by filing their joint written statement, wherein they denied that the plaintiff was a firm or registered with the Registrar of Firms. They also denied that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property or that it had rented out the shops to various tenants. The defendants asserted that Bhupinder Singh- defendant was owner in possession of the property by way of adverse possession for more than 12 years before the filing of the suit. The adverse possession stared in the year 1964 and had been hostile, motorious, continuous and without payment of any rent, etc. Electricity connections and water connection were also in the name of the defendants. Earlier the plaintiff had filed suit No. 96 of 1978 against Bhupinder Singh-defendant, wherein also said Bhupinder Singh had claimed ownership by adverse possession. The same was sufficient notice to the plaintiff of the hostile of defendant-Bhupinder Singh, who was living in the premises in dispute among with other defendants, besides carrying on his business of selling readymade garments in shop constructed by him since 1983. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.
(3.) THE learned trial Court framed nine issues on the pleadings of the parties. The controversy mainly related to Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which were found interconnected and interlinked and, thus, taken up together for discussion. The said issues are reproduced hereinbelow :- "1. xxx xxx xxx 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the entire property in dispute described in the plaint ? OPP 3. If issue No. 2 is proved whether the defendants have become owners of the property shown in red colour in their site plan mark A filed on 29.5.1991 by adverse possession ? OPD 4. Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit property as licencees under the plaintiff as alleged ? If so, its effect ? OPD." ;