Mangal Ram and Others vs Charanu and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—This is an application for re-hearing of the appeal.

Mr. Viney Mittal, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appeal had been originally filed by Mr Gurcharan Singh Gandhi but subsequently, he had been engaged on behalf of the appellants. He further states that in spite of the fact that Vakalatnama had been filed, his name was not shown in the Cause list. As a result, he was unable to appear when the case was taken up for hearing on November 3, 1992.

Notice of the application was given to learned counsel for the respondents. Reply has been filed

After haring learned counsel for the parties and perusing the application as well as the reply thereto, I am satisfied that Mr. Viney Mittal had sufficient cause for his non-appearance on November 3, 1992. It is known that the Cause list has a large number of cases. It is impossible for the counsel or his staff to remember each case, its number and names of parties. In such a situation, if the name of the counsel is not mentioned in the Cause list, his absence at the hearing cannot be said to be without sufficient cause. Accordingly, in spite of the fact that the appeal had been decided on November 3, 1992, I have heard Mr. Viney Mittal on the merits of his case.

Mr. Mittal contends that a perusal of the Jamabandies Exhibits D-1 to D-4 shows that the appellants were recorded as the owners. On this premises, learned counsel contends that the possession of Ram Dial cannot be held to be adverse and the finding recorded by the Courts below deserves to be reversed. Reference has also been placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Ganda Singh v. Ram Narain, (1959) 61 P. L. R. 374.

Having heard learned counsel, I find no ground to take a view different from the one which had been recorded on November 3, 1992. A perusal of documents Exhibits D-l to D-4 clearly shows that Ram Dial has been shown to be in possession for a long time without payment of any rent etc. to the appellants, Accordingly, there is no merit in the'' contention that merely because the appellants have been recorded as owners, the inference of adverse possession drawn by the Courts below is vitiated.

Mr. Viney Mittal vehemently contends that the attributes of adverse possession as delineated by their Lordships of the Full Bench do not exist in the present case. He, however, concedes that Ram Dial had encroached upon the piece of land that he had continued, to occupy the land ever since the years 1956-57, and that he was not paying any rent etc. to the appellants. It is thus apparent that Ram Dial had remained in actual, exclusive continuous and peaceful possession of the property in dispute. In such a sitituation it is clear that the ingredients of adverse possession as laid down by their Lordships are present in this case also.

Accordingly, the appeal has no merit and it was rightly dismissed.

This order may be read in continuation of the order dated November 3, 1992.