Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Tulsi Ram S/O Sh vs Sate Of H.P. & on 10 September, 2021
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 524 OF 2007
Between:-
1. SH. TULSI RAM S/O SH.
KARAM SINGH R/O VILLAGE
BAGHI, ILLAQA BALH, TEHSIL
SADAR DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.,
SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS
LEGAL HEIRS/LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES
1(a) SH. SAT PAL,
1(b) SH. KISHORI LAL
BOTH SONS OF LATE SH. TULSI
RAM
1(c) SMT. KANTA DEVI WD/O
LATE SH. TULSI RAM,
1(d) SMT. MAYA DEVI,
1(e) SMT. ARCHNA DEVI,
1(f) SMT. ASHA DEVI,
1(g) SMT. KUSHUM LATA,
1(h) SMT. CHANCHLA LATA
ALL DAUGHTERS OF LATE TULSI
RAM R/O VILLAGE BAGHI,
ILLAQA BALH, TEHSIL SADAR
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
......APPELLANTS
(BY SH. SUNIL CHAUHAN,
ADOVCATE.)
AND
1 SH. LILA VILAS,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS
-2-
2. SH. RAJENDER KUMAR,
3. SH. OM PARKASH,
SONS OF SH. DHANI RAM,
4. SMT. SANTOSH KUMARI,
.
5. SMT. KANTA DEVI,
DAUGHTERS OF LATE SH.
DHANI RAM
6. SMT. SATYA DEVI W/O LATE
SH. DHANI RAM,
ALL RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA
THANEHRA, MANDI, TOWN,
TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
7. SH. HARI RAM,
8. SH. RUP LAL, &
9. SH. BIRI SINGH
SONS OF SH. CHAMARU R/O
VILLAE BAGHI, ILLAQA BALH,
TEHSIL SADAR DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P.
......RESPONDENTS
(R NOS. 7 TO 9 BY SH. G. R.
PALSRA, ADVOCATE)
1 WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING? Yes.
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
The instant regular second appeal has been maintained by appellant, Shri Tulsi Ram, who was plaintiff before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as "original plaintiff"), but, during the pendency of the instant appeal, he died, now the appeal is being pursued by his legal 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS -3- representatives. The original plaintiff maintained a suit against the respondents herein, who were defendants before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants"), for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction under .
Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said suit, vide its judgment dated 29.09.2005, passed in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2002, so the original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which was partly allowed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 11.06.2007, passed in Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2005.
2. rThe key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under:
2(a). The original plaintiff maintained a suit seeking declaration that he has become owner of 1/3rd share of defendants No. 1 to 6, by way of adverse possession, with consequential relief of injunction qua the land situate at Muhal Khiuri Abbal Hadbast No. 282, Illaqua Rajgarh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., comprising of Khewat Khatauni No. 74/70/88, Khasra No. 282, measuring 2-14-6 bighas (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the suit land") and the contrary revenue entries are incorrect, null and void and subsequent sale of the suit land by defendants No. 1 to 6, by registered sale deeds, in favour of defendants No. 7 to 9, are wrong, null and void, and for permanent prohibitory injunction.::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS -4-
2(b). The original plaintiff contended that the suit land is recorded under the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiff, to the extent of 1/3rd share, Shri Chamaru Ram, to the extent of 1/3rd share and Shri Jindu Ram, to the extent of 1/3rd .
share. It is further averred that the land, prior to settlement operation, and the land falling in the share of Shri Chamaru, had been in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, so the contrary revenue entries, reflecting Shri Chamaru and Shri Jindu, as joint co-owners-in-possession alongwith the plaintiff are wrong.
After the death of Shri Jindu Ram, defendants No. 1 to 6, stepped into his shoes, but the possession remained with the original plaintiff. During the year 1988, defendants No. 1 to 6, asked the plaintiff to part with the suit land and allow them to jointly cultivate it, but the original plaintiff did not accede to such an offer. Thereafter, defendants No. 1 to 6 neither raised any such demand, nor took any steps qua the same.
Resultantly, the possession of the original plaintiff, over the suit land remained peaceful, continuous, exclusive and to the full knowledge of defendants No. 1 to 6, since 1988. Such possession matured in the year 2000 (May, 2000). Subsequent to the death of Sh. Jindu Ram, the suit land on the premise of revenue entries, vide mutation No. 311, dated 12.07.2001, mutated in the names of defendants No. 1 to 6, who sold the same, through registered sale deed No. 1043, dated 03.08.2001, and No. 1101 dated 18.08.2001, to defendants No. 7 to 9, ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS -5- mutation No. 314, dated 15.09.2001, and mutation No. 315, dated 15.09.2001, were also attested in favour of defendants No. 7 to 9. Resultantly, taking advantage of the wrongful sale, defendants No. 7 to 9 started causing wrongful interference with .
the peaceful enjoyment and possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land and the original plaintiff was also threatened to be forcibly dispossessed from the suit land. 2(c). Defendants No. 1 to 6 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein they took preliminary objections, i.e., maintainability and cause of action. On merits, the stand taken by the original plaintiff was refuted and denied. It is averred that the possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land is that of a co-sharer and despite that he is cultivating the entire land, including the suit land, which fall in the shares of other co-sharers. They (defendants No. 1 to 6) and Shri Chamaru sold their respective shares, including the suit land, to defendants No. 7 to 9, so defendants No. 7 to 9 have become joint owners- in-possession of the land, including the suit land. Lastly, defendants No. 1 to 6 prayed for dismissal of the suit. 2(d). Defendants No. 7 to 9 also contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein they took preliminary objections, i.e., maintainability, estopple, cause of action and the suit being fictitious one. In addition to the above preliminary objections, defendants No. 7 to 9 took a preliminary objection that they are bonafide purchasers of the suit land. On merits, it ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS -6- is pleaded that the original plaintiff is simply a co-sharer alongwith Sh. Chamaru Ram and Sh. Jindu (both real brothers) and the possession of the plaintiff is only of a co-sharers, which is subject to partition. It is further averred that they are bonafide .
purchasers of the suit land and as sequel they have legal right to get the suit land partitioned and partition proceedings have thus been initiated. It is further specifically averred that the possession of the suit land, though lying with the plaintiff, yet the same is only that of a co-sharer.
3. The original plaintiff, by filing replication, denied and refuted the averments made in the respective written statements of defendants No. 1 to 6 and 7 to 9 and reiterated and reasserted his stand taken in the plaint.
4. The learned Trial Court on 15.05.2004 framed the following issues for determination and adjudication:
"1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit land by way of adverse possession as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the sale deeds dated 03.08.2001 and 18.08.2001 are wrong, illegal, null and void? If so, its effects? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own acts and conducts to file the present suit as alleged? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD
7. Whether the defendants No. 7 to 9 are bonafide purchaser of the suit land as alleged? OPD 7 to 9.
8. Relief."::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS -7-
5. After deciding issues No. 1 to 3 against the original plaintiff, issue No. 4 in favour of the defendants, issue No. 5 against the defendants, issue No. 6 in favour of the defendants .
and issue No. 7 against defendants No. 7 to 9, the suit of the original plaintiff was dismissed. Subsequently, the original plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, which was partly allowed, vide impugned judgment dated 11.06.2007, hence the present regular second appeal, which was admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law:
"1. Whether the party to the lis who is the only witness to the facts of case is bound to appear?
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, learned Counsel for respondents No. 7 to 9 and have carefully gone through the records.
7. Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, learned Counsel for the LRs of the deceased appellant has argued that the law on adverse possession is very clear that the suit is maintainable on behalf of the person, who is in adverse possession. He has further argued that the adverse possession started during the month of May, 1988 and ultimately the original plaintiff became absolute owner-in-possession of the suit land during the month of May, 2000. He has further argued that the adverse possession of the original plaintiff continued till the time the suit ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS -8- was filed. He has argued that the learned Court below has committed perversity in not taking into consideration the evidence and not appreciating the documents correctly, so the instant appeal be allowed. In order to fetch lateral support to .
his arguments, the learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the following judicial pronouncements:
1. Jaram Singh vs. Sate of H.P. & others, Current Law Journal (Himachal Pradesh) 2005 (Suppl.) 90; &
2. Satish Kumar & others vs. Narinder Kumar & others, Current Law Journal (Himachal Pradesh) 2007 (Suppl.) 169.
He has further argued that the plea of ouster was specifically taken, but the learned Trial Court below, without discussing the same, has dismissed the suit. In these circumstances, the appeal is required to be remanded back to the learned Trial Court below for framing an issue on complete ouster of the defendants from the suit land, as it has been specifically pleaded in the plaint by the original plaintiff, and render its findings thereon. He has drawn attention of this Court to a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Smt. Bindi Devi and others vs. Jagat Ram, 2021(2) Him L.R. (HC) 870, wherein it has been held that in concurrent findings also the High Court can interfere. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the case be remanded back for adjudicating the plea of ouster, which was specifically taken by the original plaintiff before the Court of lowest rung.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS -9-
8. Conversely, Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for respondents No. 7 to 9 has argued that one co-sharer is also trustee of the other and the ouster is required to be pleaded and proved, which is not done in the instant case. He has argued .
that the statement of Smt. Prabhi Devi is not reliable, as she is sister-in-law of the original plaintiff. He has further argued that in the settlement adverse possession of the original plaintiff was not recorded. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal sans merits, deserves dismissal and may be dismissed.
9. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the LRs of the original appellant has argued that adverse inference is required to be drawn against the defendants, as defendants No. 1 to 6 had not appeared in the witness-box. He has relied upon a verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another, (2012) 8 Supreme Court Cases
148. Lastly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed.
13. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties I have gone through the record carefully.
10. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original plaintiff is that the original plaintiff specifically pleaded complete ouster of the defendants from the suit land, but, the learned Trial Court ignored such pleadings and did not frame any issue qua the same. The pleading of complete ouster of the defendants, as per the learned counsel for the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, is ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS
- 10 -
further fortified by the examination of original plaintiff, wherein he stated that the attempt of the defendants to cause interference over the suit land was dodged by him way back in May, 1988, and thereafter, the defendants neither caused .
interference over the suit land nor took any steps to gain possession over the suit land, so ultimately the possession of the original plaintiff matured and became absolute during the month of May, 2000, i.e. after twelve years.
11. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it fit to examine the above moot question, whereupon the whole case of the original plaintiff pivots. Thus, this Court need not to dig deep into the other issues and firstly need to examine whether the original plaintiff specifically averred in his plaint "complete ouster of the defendants", followed by evidence to this effect and whether the learned Trial Court proceeded without examining such a plea of the original plaintiff?
12. A perusal of the plaint filed by the original plaintiff would make it clear that the plea of complete ouster had been made by the original plaintiff in his plaint. Relevant para of the plaint is extracted hereunder for the sake of ready reference:
"3. That after the death of Jindu Ram about more than 30 years, though defendants No. 1 to 6 had stepped into his shows, but the possession of the suit land continued with the plaintiff and in May, 1988 the defendants No. 1 to 6 required the plaintiff to part with possession of their 1/3rd share out of the above land, and to allow them to jointly cultivate the same, but their such demand was turned down by the plaintiff and they were not allowed to enter into the suit land. Thereafter, defendants No. 1 to 6 neither asked for delivery of possession of the suit land to them nor took any steps in this regard and kept mum. It is thus from this date, i.e. May,1988 that the ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS
- 11 -
adverse possession of the plaintiff over the suit land started, which is open, peaceful, continuous, exclusive to the complete ouster of the defendants No. 1 to 6, to their full knowledge, hostile and notorious, which had ripened, matured and perfected into absolute title in May, 2000, inasmuch as the plaintiff had been cultivating the suit land and enjoying its fruits for himself by doing over acts with an .
hostile animus thereon and thus in view of the above facts, the plaintiff seeks to declare him to be the owner by virtue of his adverse possession of the suit land qua the 1/3rd share of defendants No. 1 to 6 and liable to be recorded in the revenue records, as such and existing wrong revenue entries appearing in the name of Jindu Ram (now defendants No. 1 to 6 being legal heirs/representatives of Jindu Ram deceased) and defendants No. 7 to 9 are liable to be struck off/cancelled."
The above pleadings of the original plaintiff were only reiterated by him while he was being examined in the learned Trial Court. However, a bare perusal of the judgment of the learned Trial Court reveals that though an issue qua adverse possession had been framed, but no issue qua complete ouster of the defendants had been framed. In this situation, this Court finds it difficult, despite the fact that the matter is pending disposal before this High Court for the last more than thirteen years, to ignore the above facet of the case and thus the matter needs to be relegated to the learned Trial Court to frame an issue of complete ouster of the defendants and render its findings thereon or to give its findings on the plea of ouster, as the parties know their case when they led the evidence.
13. Noticeably, the original plaintiff, while appearing in the witness-box, as PW-1, deposed that the revenue entries depicting Shri Chamaru and Shri Jindu as co-owners are wrong. He has stated that after the death of Shri Jindu wrong revenue ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS
- 12 -
entries have been incorporated on the names of defendants No. 1 to 6, being his successors. Defendants No. 1 to 6 did not possess the suit land ever and likewise defendants No. 7 to 9 do not possess the same. Prior to settlement, he (the original .
plaintiff) was cultivating the suit land and the land of Shri Chamaru. Though, during the month of May, 1988, the original plaintiff was asked by defendants No. 1 to 6 to deliver possession qua their shares to them, but such an attempt was dodged by him. Thereafter, defendants No. 1 to 6 neither attempted to gain possession, nor endeavoured to initiate legal proceedings against him. So, the possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land, since 1988, is open, hostile and without any interruption. The fact that the original plaintiff acquired the title of the suit land, by way of adverse possession, is within the knowledge of the defendants, so the right of defendants No. 1 to 6 over the suit land has extinguished. Taking advantage of the wrong revenue entries, effected in favour of defendants No. 7 to 9, after sale of the suit land in their favour, they started interfering over the suit land and also threatened the original plaintiff to dispossess him. The original plaintiff, in his cross-examination, stated that initially Sh. Chamaru sold the suit land to defendant No. 9 (Shri Biri Singh) and mutation to this effect was also attested. Later on, when mutation was attested in favour of defendants No. 1 to 6, they also sold their shares in favour of defendants No. 7 to 9. Thus, the original plaintiff specifically ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS
- 13 -
stated that during the month of May, 1988, he avoided the attempt of defendants No. 1 to 6 to enter into the suit land and disturb his possession. Thereafter, defendants No. 1 to 6 neither again attempt to gain possession, nor initiated any legal .
proceedings against him. So, it is clear that the original plaintiff specifically pleaded the plea of complete ouster of defendants No. 1 to 6 and the learned Trial Court did not render its decision on this aspect of the case.
14. The above aspect of the case is further fortified by the statement of Smt. Prabhi Devi, while she appeared in the witness-box as PW-2. She stated that about seventeen years back defendants No. 1 to 6 possession of their shares from the original plaintiff, however, the original plaintiff did not allow them to enter the suit land. The possession of the original plaintiff over the suit land is open, continuous and peaceful.
15. No doubt, the instant is a case of concurrent findings, however, this Court can interfere in cases of concurrent findings. Admittedly, the general rule is that the High Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below, but this rule is not absolute. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its decision rendered in Smt. Bindi Devi and others vs. Jagat Ram, 2021 (2) Him L.R. (HC) 870, relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 2843-2844 of 2010, titled as Nazir Mohamed vs. J. ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS
- 14 -
Kamala and others decided on 27th August, 2020. Relevant excerpt whereof is ad under:
"37(iv). The general rule is, that High Court will not .
interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognized exceptions are where (i) the Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the Courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the Courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
Considering the ratio of the judgment above, the same is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in the instant case the learned Courts below have ignored the vital aspect of the pleadings, wherein the original plaintiff raised the plea of complete ouster of the defendants, resultantly no findings have been rendered on this aspect of the case. In such circumstances, the instant case is necessarily to be remanded back to the learned Trial Court to examine such aspect of the case, as the learned First Appellate Court should have given findings on all the issues, including the issue of ouster and the non framing of the issue of ouster is of no consequence, as the parties known their case. However, the findings on all the aspects are required to be given by the learned First Appellate Court, after analyzing all the facts of the case in hand.
16. In addition to the above facet, i.e., "complete ouster of the defendants", the learned counsel for the legal ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS
- 15 -
representatives of the original plaintiff argued that the original plaintiff has become owner-in-possession over the suit land by way of adverse possession. As observed above, the learned First Appellate Court was required to give analytical and complete .
findings on all the facts, including the factum of ouster, which was specifically pleaded and evidence to this effect was also led by the parties in the learned Trial Court, but the learned First Appellate Court has failed to consider it and give a thoughtful discussion upon this facet of the case followed by findings, after considering the evidence, specifically the evidence of Smt. Prabhi Devi, who stated with regard to ouster of the defendants and also the evidence on record with regard to possession of all the co-sharers at three different places of their alleged joint land form the last many many years.
17. Now, coming to the aspect of adverse possession. As far as the plaintiff is concerned, he by examining PW-2, Smt. Prabhi Devi, wanted to prove the date wherefrom the possession of the original plaintiff became adverse over the suit land. A careful examination of the records would show that defendants No. 1 to 6, did not chose to examine themselves. Defendants No. 1 to 6 sold their share of the land to defendants No. 7 to 9 and in such circumstances, the actual position qua the possession over the suit land would only be known to defendants No. 1 to 6, but they have not stepped into the witness-box, may be deliberately. On the other hand, the original plaintiff raised the plea of ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS
- 16 -
complete ouster of defendants No. 1 to 6 by specific pleadings, which are supported with evidence. In the given situation, the learned First Appellate Court should have examined this aspect of the case, but unfortunately it escaped and went unnoticed. A .
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Satish Kumar & others vs. Narinder Kumar & others, Current Law Journal (Himachal Pradesh) 2007 (Suppl.) 169, held in paras No. 6, 9 and 10 as under:
"6. The first appellate Court is duty bound to discuss all the contentions raised by the parties. It is bound to undertake detailed examination and critical appraisal of facts before it and cannot mechanically reaffirm the findings of the learned trial Court. Reference is being made to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kanwal Nain Sachdeva and others, 1999(9) SCC 193, where it r has been held by the Supreme Court in para 3 as under:-
"The High Court dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order stating that no case had been made out for interfering in the well reasoned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In our opinion, the High Court ought to have discussed the merits of the contentions raised by the insurance Company especially when it was dealing with the first appeal against the order of the Tribunal."
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
9. Precedents on this point need not be multiplied as the law is clear and well settled that first appeal is a valuable right and the evidence has to be analysed clearly and precisely and precedents applied judicially.
10. I find from the judgment of the appellate Court that no such attempt has been made. Even the trial Court has gone awry by just mentioning the evidence and the law and making no attempt on critical appraisal of the facts and law before it. In the circumstances, the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge (2), Kangra for decisi8on afresh in accordance with law. He will keep in mind the directions of the Supreme Court that all the issues, facts and law should be dealt with. ... ... ... ...
The above ratio of the law is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case, as in the instant case the learned First Appellate ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS
- 17 -
Court ignored the vital aspect of the case and proceeded to mechanically concur with the opinion of the learned Trial Court.
The learned First Appellate Court is required to go through the entire records/evidence, as the learned First Appellate Court .
ignored the vital aspect of the case, now the case is to be remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court to give findings on all the facts, including the factum of ouster, which was specifically pleaded and evidence to this effect was also led by the parties, so at this stage this Court finds that as the parties were knowing their case, therefore, non-framing of issue by the learned Trial Court qua the ouster of the defendants from the suit land is of no consequence, but the learned First Appellate Court has to give its findings on the issue of ouster of the defendants from the suit land, as the main thrust of the original plaintiff, as emerges, is upon the complete ouster of the defendants from the suit land.
18. Though, the learned Counsel for the original plaintiff and the learned Counsel for respondents No. 7 to 9 have cited few more judicial pronouncements, but the same are of no worth, as this Court is of the opinion that the case is to be remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court for examining the plea of "complete ouster of the defendants" from the suit land and rendering its decision thereon, so the other judgments, as cited, are not discussed deliberately.::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS
- 18 -
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the party(ies) to the lis, who is/are the only witness(es) to the facts of the case, need to prove or disprove such facts and in case of absence of such party(ies), plausible .
reason for such absence is required. The only substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
20. After having discussed the entire gamut of the matter applying the relevant law on the subject, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal has merits and the same is allowed.
In aftermath, the matter is remanded back to the learned First Appellate Court to consider the factum of complete ouster of the defendants (defendants No. 1 to 6) from the suit land and render detailed findings in this regard. As the dispute dates back to the year 2002, the learned First Appellate Court is expected to decide it at the earliest.
21. In view of the above the appeal is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
22. The parties are directed to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 4-10-2021.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge 10th September, 2021 (virender) ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:03:08 :::CIS