The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove adverse possession and wrongful dispossession in property disputes, as well as the interpretation and application of the provisions of adverse possession under the Transfer of Property Act and the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1990 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bali whereby he has decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent no. 1 for possession and mesne profits.

2. The plaintiff respondent no. 1 filed a suit for possession of Thala' against the defendant appellant and defendant respondent no. 2. The plaintiff sought possession of the plot shown as A, B, E, F in the site plan annexed with the plaint and also mesne profits for six months at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and further mesne profits on the ground that on 30th April, 1969 he purchased the disputed land from defendant respondent no. 2 Champalal. It is situated at Phalna Station, Sanderao Road for Rs. 1500/- for which defendant respondent no. 2 and one Tejmal executed a sale-deed on 20th May, 1969 and possession was handed over on 30th April, 1969. According to the plaintiff he was in peaceful possession of the property. The plot is 90 Feet long and 43 Feet wide and towards west of the plot 10 Feet land has been left for way, which was part of the Pattasud land. It was further averred that after the closure of the way, the plaintiff started using 10 Feet land and therefore he was in possession 90 Feet x 53 Feet, which was covered by boundary which was removed when houses of Chandanmal and Narsingh Panwar were made. It was further stated in the plaint that when the plot was sold, defendant Champalal and Tejmal had no land towards southern side of the plot and when he came to know about this mistake he asked defendant no. 2 Tejmal to rectify the mistake. Plaintiff further stated that he obtained permission for making construction over the plot on 21st January, 1976 which was granted on 22.2.1976. He started digging foundation and since he was transferred from that place he could not complete the construction. It was further stated that defendant no. 2 Champalal tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 with the connivance of the defendant appellant, without getting consideration, executed a sale deed in favour of defendant appellant for which he had no right to sell it. It was further stated that in the absence of plaintiff defendant no. 2 unauthorisedly took possession of the portion A B E F before 6-7 months from the date of filing the suit and defendant respondent no. 2 also put stone slabs and also made a room K E Kha Gha measuring 13.6 Feet x 10.3 Inches to remove the possession and since he failed to do so he filed a suit for possession for the portion of plot marked A B E F and also for mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 50 per month.

3. The defendant appellant no. 1 filed written statement stating therein that there was no connivance with Shri Champalal, and Chhaganlal sold the property on 4.2.1982 for Rs. 14,000/- and gave possession to the defendant appellant thereafter he raised construction for making a room and plaintiff is not entitled to get any possession. It was further stated that the valuation of the property was at least Rs. 20,000/- when the suit was filed and since the suit has been filed after paying improper court fees, therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The defendant respondent no. 2 Champalal also filed written statement and stated that he and Tejmal sold the property to plaintiff on 30th April, 1969, sale deed was not prepared by the plaintiff and their signatures were taken and it was presented for registration on 20th May, 1969. It was further stated that Shri Champalal and Tejmal sold the land measuring 45 x 43 Feet for Rs. 1500/- and in the sale deed wrong measurements were mentioned by the plaintiff. It was further stated that the plaintiff was given possession of land measuring 45 x 43 Feet and he sold the remaining portion of the plot on 4.2.1982 after taking Rs. 14,000/- from defendant appellant. It was further stated that Champalal was in possession over the disputed la