State of HP vs Sunder Singh and Another

Deepak Gupta, J.—This Regular Second Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2001 whereby he rejected the appeal of the State and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs alleged that the suit land depicted as khasra No. 85 measuring 1157 Sq. meters was coming in their possession prior to the earlier settlement held in the year 1910. It was further alleged that this land as per the earlier settlement was not allotted any khasra number, since it was part of un-demarcated and unmeasured land. In the year 1984-85 fresh settlement took place and in this settlement, the land in possession of the Plaintiffs was allotted as khasra No. 85.

According to the Plaintiffs, this land has been in their possession for centuries and was never in possession of the State Government. It was, therefore, prayed that the Plaintiffs are the owners in possession and in any event their possession is hostile and they have become owners by way of adverse possession.

The right of Defendant-State to file the written statement was closed. The Plaintiffs led evidence and the evidence on record clearly shows that the Plaintiffs/their predecessor-in 2 3 interest have been coming in possession of this land for a long period of time at least from the year 1910 onwards. Both the Courts below have given this finding of fact in favour of the Plaintiffs and decreed the suit.

Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General contends that the ingredients of adverse possession have not been proved by the Plaintiffs. According to him, while appearing in the witness box, the Plaintiffs have not shown when their title became hostile to the true owners and mere possession by itself would not make the same adverse to that of the true owners. Submission made by Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General in a normal case may be accepted to be correct, but cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. Undisputedly we are dealing with a case where prior to 1994 the land formed part of unmeasured and un-demarcated land. It has also come in the evidence that the Plaintiffs/their predecessor-4 in-interest have been coming in possession of the said land for generations and have used the said land for planting of orchards and raising construction etc. These activities can themselves show that they were treating the land to be their own land. The law never expects a person to improve the impossible. How can the present generation prove when the possession of 4 or 5 generations earlier had turn hostile. In these circumstances, in such a situation the inference that the possession was hostile can be drawn from the fact that the Plaintiffs and their neighbourer were treating them owners of the land for more than a century.

Therefore, in my view no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.