AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having heard the learned counsels of both the parties, it is evident that original suit no. 206/1989 was instituted for seeking prohibitory injunction against the defendant/appellant herein to the effect of not to interfere in the possession of plaintiff society on the property which is enumerated in Schedule-A of the plaint. Recovery of the possession was another relief in the property elucidated in Schedule-B of the plaint which was admittedly in the possession of defendant/appellant herein. It may be mentioned that Schedule-A is a lions'' share of the whole property while Schedule-B property was a minor part. It is also pertinent to mention that all the defendants were the close blood relations to each other.
The case of the plaintiff was that Shri Yashpal was permitted to live on the property in order to take care of the whole property of the Ashram by the preceptor and the Incharge of the Ashram Swami Nardanand Ji Saraswati Maharaj. Gradually Shri Ram Singh called his son, daughter-in-law, grand son to live in within him in the property and all of them later on strived to manifest themselves to be the owner of the whole property in order to grab the same. Various issues were framed. The suit was wholly decreed on 26.4.2010 after a battle of almost 21 years. The First Appeal whereagainst was also dismissed on 18.5.2017. During the First Appeal two applications under Order 41 Rule 27 were filed seeking permission of taking certain documents on record and ultimately it was directed by the coordinate Bench of this court that the taking of such documents on record shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
The case of the appellant herein is that the whole property was jointly owned by one Shri Hansraj, Kulwant Rai and Fakeer Chand and all the defendants are the legal heirs of Shri Hansraj. The alternative case was raised that they are in the adverse possession of such property. So, on the basis of adverse possession they have now acquired the title rights over the same. As regards the co-owner of all the three aforenamed persons and the relation of Shri Hansraj with rest of the two is concerned, the learned First Appellate Court has taken this aspect in paragraph 45 of its judgment. In his written statement, the defendants averred that Shri Hansraj was the real brother of Shri Kulwant Rai while in his deposition such assertion was denied.
Undoubtedly, in civil matters the alternative pleas can be raised but such alternative pleas to my mind should not be altogether reversed in nature and detrimental to each other. The person who is claiming the ownership on the property in question on the basis of succession can hardly be permitted to claim the ownership on the basis of adverse possession because nature of both the assertions are quite opposite to each other. As regards the consideration of documents filed by the defendants under Order 41 Rule 27, I am of the view that those have extensively been considered by the First Appellate Court with papers filed in rebuttal by the plaintiff. Otherwise also, the question that the defendants are the legal heirs of Hansraj is the question of fact and which can not be permitted to be raised during the course of this second appeal.
I think this second appeal has no merit.
It is hereby dismissed at the threshold.