Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Civil Appeal No.20A of 1976 filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Bargon on 24th March, 1977. The appellate court considered the contention of the defendant for the alleged sale of the suit land and arrived at the conclusion that the defendant has neither produced on record the so-called letter nor document executed in his favour by the plaintiff, nor he has taken it as a ground in his pleading that he had lost the said document, nor he has prayed for production of secondary evidence. The Court further appreciated the contention of the defendant with regard to the alleged sale by observing that even the so-called witnesses, in whose presence the talks for sale took place, namely, Gulab Singh and Dhyan Singh, were not examined by the defendant to prove that contract. As against this, it was found that plaintiff had handed over the land to the defendant in the year 1957-58 for batai (half share) only for two years and the defendant had not restored the land. The Court arrived at the conclusion that this fact is borne out by Ex.P1 Khasra for the Samvat Year 2014-15. The Court further considered that in the Khasra for the Samvat Year 2015- 16 in remarks column there is no reference of any agreement of sale. The Court also referred to khatauni, P1 produced by the plaintiff which mentioned that disputed land stood in the name of defendant not as an owner. The Court appreciated and accepted the evidence of plaintiff that he has neither sold the land nor did he execute any document in favour of the defendant. After considering the evidence on record, the court observed that from the deposition of the witnesses examined by the defendant it can be stated that he was in possession of the suit land since 1956-57, but there is no evidence about the sale in his favour and held that plaintiff had given this land to defendant on batai for two years i.e. for Samvat Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and thereafter defendant had been continuously in unauthorised possession. But from this fact, it can not be held that defendant had acquired title by adverse possession.