HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court whereby suit for possession of land measuring 1 Kanal was decreed.
(2.) ORIGINALLY , the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction in the land measuring 2 Kanals. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they are owners in possession of the suit land and the defendants were trying to raise the construction illegally and forcibly. In the written statement dated 30.03.1989, it was pleaded that Communist Party, Ropar, is shown to be in possession of the land in dispute in the revenue record. On merits, it was pointed out that the defendants have become owners of land measuring 1 Kanal and the remaining portion is in possession of one Mistry Kartar Singh deceased since 1960. The defendants have raised construction over said 1 Kanal area consisting of one hall for holding the meetings, one kitchen and the courtyard. Such construction was raised after getting the site plan approved from the Municipality and the possession of the Communist Party was open and with the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs never objected to the possession of the party nor they have ever claimed any rent or lease money from the party. An application for amendment of the plaintiff was filed on 10.09.1990 alleging therein that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants have forcibly raised construction in the part of the suit property. It was pointed out that the plaintiffs are residents of Delhi and as such they personally cannot come and look after the suit property. The defendants took advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs and have raised construction in part of the suit property. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed possession in respect of 1 Kanal of the suit property. The plaintiffs were permitted to amend the suit on 22.10.1990 subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. On the next date i.e., on 5.11.1990, the amended plaint was permitted to be taken on record and the amended written statement was filed. The costs imposed were also paid. In reply to the amended plaint, it was stated that the defendants are enjoying the possession of the area measuring 2 Kanals since 28.02.1976 when the office building was inaugurated. The defendants have got the building constructed after getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal Committee, Ropar, and the plaintiffs never objected to the user of the suit property. The possession of the defendants has been open and hostile throughout these years commencing 28.3.1976. It was pleaded that the defendant Communist Party is owner of the suit property on account of their continuous hostile adverse possession to the notice of all including the plaintiffs.
(3.) ON the basis of respective pleadings, following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the land as owner ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP 3A. Whether the defendants have forcibly raised the construction over the suit property during the pendency of the suit ? If so, its effect ? OPP 3B. Whether the defendant communist party has become owner by way of adverse possession ? Onus on defendants. ;