Point of Law: Certified copy of Jamabandi entries admissible in evidence under Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The appellant vide this Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, 1908 as amended assails the findings of the learned trial Court in Suit No. M38/99 dated 25.02.2000 and also assails the judgment/decree dated 22.04.2017 of the First Appellate Court of the learned ADJ-02, West in RCA 1/17/91 whereby the appeal against the said judgment and counter objections in relation thereto were both dismissed.

2. The sole appellant now who was arrayed as plaintiff no.2 to the suit as initially instituted had filed a suit for possession and recovery of Rs.17760/- on account of damages against defendant no.1, the Gurudwara Management Committee, Gurudwara Nanaksar Thath and against defendant no.2 Sant Baba Amar Singhji, President of the said Committee contending that the plaintiffs were owners of three bighas of land forming part of Khasra No.1673/1100, Khewat Jamabandi No.69/70, Khatauni No.189 in the revenue estate of village Bahapur, Delhi as per Settlement of 1949/1950 and that the defendants had illegally encroached upon the part of the said land measuring 2200 sq. yrds. in February, 1979 and had raised unauthorized construction of a gurudwara over the same and despite protests made by the plaintiffs, the defendants paid no heed to the same whereupon the plaintiffs served a notice dated 05.02.1991 upon the defendants requesting them to remove the unauthorized construction and to hand over back the vacant peaceful possession of the land to the plaintiffs but the defendants did not respond and rather encroached (upon 800 sq. yrd. of land also which also belonged to the plaintiff in February, 1981) and thus the plaintiffs issued another notice dated 25.01.1982 again calling upon the defendant to remove the illegal and unauthorized construction and hand over to them the peaceful vacant possession of the land measuring 3 bighas to which also there was no response from the defendant nos.1 & 2 and thus the suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking recovery of possession and for damages. The defendant nos.1 & 2 apart from the other contentions raised by them through the written statement submitted that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and the suit was not supported with the detailed site plan and the suit was barred by limitation and because defendant no.2 had been in possession of the suit property since December, 1969 and around and that he had raised the construction of the impugned Gurudwara for religious purposes and that the possession of the defendant no.2 had all along been open, continuous and hostile to all persons including the plaintiffs since 1969 and that the defendant no.2 had spent about Rs.30 lakhs on the construction of the superstructure and no objection at any point of time during the construction of the Gurudwara was raised by anyone including the plaintiff. Inter alia it had been contended by defendant nos.1 & 2 that the suit was barred under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.

3. Issues that were framed in the said suit were to the effect :

“1. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD. If not so, what is the proper valuation?

2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD

3. Whether the suit is barred by the period of limitation against defendant No.2? OPD-2

4. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the land in dispute? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession as claimed? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim any damages for use and occupation, if so, at what rate and for what amount, for what period? OPP

7. Relief.”,

and subsequently vide order dated 03.11.1988, an additional issue no.3(A) was framed which was to the effect :

“3(A). Whether the suit is barred by Delhi Land Reforms Act?”

4. The said judgment indicates that issue no.3 as to whether the suit was barred by the period of limitation against defendant No.2 had been disposed of vide judgment dated 16.03.1991 in the suit as it th