The plaintiffs are before this Court impugning the orders passed by the High Court in the Regular Second Appeal Nos. The orders dated 5.4.2010 passed in Review Application Nos.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/disclosure-and-recovery-of-weapon-a-key-factor-in-conviction/
The suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment dated 28.2.1991. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court was upheld by the High Court in appeal vide order dated 13.10.
He further submitted that before the Trial Court, during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants had categorically admitted that the disputed site is part of Khasra No 4833.
He further referred to document at page 97 of the paper book whereby the respondents submitted building plans to the Municipal Committee for the property in dispute specifically mentioning that it is part of Khasra No 4833. As far as the plea of adverse possession is concerned, the findings were against the present respondents/the plaintiffs therein whereas decree of permanent injunction was passed on account of long possession of respondents holding that they cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/moratorium-application-in-insolvency-case/
Sanjay Parikh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that it is too late for the appellants to raise all the factual issues before this Court. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents were also impleaded as respondents in the Execution Petition as they were obstructing the execution of decree and trying to raise construction thereon. The mere fact that the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents had filed the suit claiming ownership of the property on the basis of adverse possession, pre-supposes that the ownership of the appellants on the suit property was admitted.
In any case, the issue regarding the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents having become owner of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession was decided against the plaintiffs therein.
It was specifically held that the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit had failed to prove their adverse possession. This was a report by the Local Commissioner appointed in the Execution Proceedings filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, in which predecessor- in-interest of the respondents were also party. No doubt, he has at one stage argued that the identity of the property is not established but since he has conceded this fact that the disputed site is part of Khasra Another fact which clearly establishes that it was the admitted case of the respondents herein that the property in dispute is part of Khasra No 4833 is evident from an application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents before the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector on 2.8.1993 seeking correction of Khasra Girdawari, wherein it was claimed that the applicants were the owners in possession of the shops since 1950 and the same was part of Khasra No.
However, relying upon the report of the Local Commissioner dated 2.12.1978, it was opined that the suit property being different and the present appellants not being the owners thereof, they are not entitled to any relief.
However, on that issue as well, the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court as well as the High Court are perverse if considered in the light of two material documents which are in the form of admission of respondents themselves regarding the identity of the property in their possession. Still further the plea of the respondents about adverse possession pre-supposes ownership of the specific property of the appellants, which is claimed to be in possession of the respondents. _____________
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-juvenile-justice-act-and-incarceration-period/
, J.
Case Title: MURTI SHRI DURGA BHAWANI (HETUWALI) TRUST Vs. SH. DIWAN CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. . (2023 INSC 348)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006801-006801 / 2010
