The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of adverse possession principles and the procedural rules under the Civil Procedure Code to determine property ownership and the validity of previous judgments.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.8.2002 rendered by the Additional District Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 89-K/97 whereby an appeal preferred by the appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants” for convenience sake) was partly allowed to the extent that the decree of the trial court holding that the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for convenience sake) had become owner by way of adverse possession of the suit land was set aside, however, the judgment and decree to the effect that it has declared the judgment and decree rendered in Civil Suit No. 99/89 as null and void was upheld.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that according to the averments made in the plaint, about 35-36 years back, one Mangatu son of Tegu came to village Chari and started leaving with plaintiff’s sister Nihatu widow of Sh. Podu. Nihatu had constructed a house in Khasra No. 1710 and was living therein. Plaintiff, his brother and sister were also living with Nihatu. He was looking after Nihatu. Mangatu and his son Chamaru were also living there. Mangatu purchased land comprised in Khata No. 422, Khatanu No. 874, Khasra Nos. 1709 and area measuring 0-01-08 hectares Gair Mumkin Abadi situated in Mohal and Mauza Chari, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra. He had constructed a house thereon. He alongwith his son started living in the house. Thereafter, about 30 years back, Chamaru left village and never came back again. Since Mangatu was quite old, plaintiff started living with him. In the earthquake of 1986, the house of Mangatu collapsed and destroyed. Plaintiff was in occupation of that house. He was given compensation of Rs. 1200/- by the State Government. Defendant No.1 Smt. Amriti never married with Chamaru nor ever lived with him. She never came into possession of the suit land or the house. She was wife of Basakhu Ram son of Panna, resident of Saddoon, Tehsil and District Kangra. Smt. Amriti Devi in collusion with defendant Nos. 2 to 6, as arrayed in the original suit, filed a Civil Suit No.99/89 in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, titled as Smt. Amriti Devi vs. General Public. Amriti Devi in collusion with defendant Nos. 2 to 6 defrauded and misrepresented the Court by claiming falsely to be wife of Chamaru son of Mangatu which she never was. Plaintiff was never impleaded as defendant in the suit knowing fully well that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land since the death of Mangatu. Learned Sub Judge 3rd Class, Dharamshala passed an ex parte decree on 30.12.1989 in Civil Suit No. 99/89 in favour of Amriti Devi. Mutation No. 502 was also attested in her favour on 23.11.1991. In the alternative, it was prayed that the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Plaintiff came to know that Amriti has sold the suit land to defendant Nos. 2 to 6.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. On merit, it was stated that the plaintiff was not owner of the suit land, rather Amriti was owner of the suit land and she has sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.4, namely, Multan Singh. Nihatu had never constructed a house adjoining to land bearing Khasra No. 1709. This Khasra number belonged to defendant Nos. 2 to 5. There was no relationship of the plaintiff with Nihatu or Mangatu and Chamaru Ram was married to Amriti. They lived together. Chamaru had gone to Punjab in search of some job. He never came back. Mangatu father of Chamaru also died about 20 years back. Plaintiff was not collateral of Mangatu or Chamaru. Defendant Amriti started living in village Saddoon and left dilapidated house under the care of Mehar Singh predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos.2 to 6. The house collapsed. Civil Suit No. 99/89 was rightly decreed.

4. Issues were framed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Dharamshala on 11.9.1992. She decreed the