- (1.) Rank trespassers or the persons claiming title on the weak plea of adverse possession are the cantankerous litigants to burden, rather over burden the dockets of the Courts for long periods and their success lies in the length of time rather than on any merit in the foundation of their cases. The present case is another such glaring example of the misuse of the Court process that too in the narrow and limited scope of the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which lies only on the substantial questions of law, not so far decided by the Apex Court or even the same High Court, which questions may require a fine analysis and interpretation of the relevant statute based on the facts proved and found by the courts below in two rounds of litigation.
(2.) The appellants/defendants have called in question the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.03.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, District: Churu in Civil Appeal No. 05/2003, whereby the judgment and decree dated 09.04.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ratangarh, Churu in Civil Suit No. 157/2001 (50/95) - Basant Kumar & Ors. vs. Shri Ram Pathya Granthaghar Samiti & Ors., was reversed and suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed for possession and mesne profit.
(3.) The appellant No. 1-Shri Ram Pathya Granthagar Samiti, a registered society bearing Registration No. 17/86, in Ratangarh, District: Churu, and the appellant, Raghunandan S/o. Sita Ram Dhard, claiming their right of title and possession on the suit property, belonging to the plaintiffs/respondents, (Chaturbhuj, Ramanand, Ramcharan, Jagannath and Hardev) the lineal descendants of their forefathers, about 35 in number now before this Court and some of them have expired during this long period of pendency of the suit in present second appeal for last almost three decades at the hearing stage in the present suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in the year 1988, where both the courts below not only found in favour of plaintiffs, their title over the suit property, a property with boundary wall at Ratangarh in District: Churu, but the first appellate court taking a different view than the trial court, also held against the defendants/appellants that they even could not claim any semblance of right of possession or title on the basis of their so called plea of adverse possession over the suit property.;