The principle of 'possession follows title' applies only when ownership is established; mere possession without title does not confer rights.

JUDGMENT :

CSA No. 24/2005:

01. The Appellants have directed this Civil Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 10th of September, 2005 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Rajouri (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) in Civil First Appeal No. 11/A titled ‘Tara Wanti & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.’, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated 30th of May, 2002 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge, Nowshera (for short ‘Trial Court’), dismissing the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs/Appellants herein titled ‘Tara Wanti & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.’, has been confirmed.

02. The factual matrix of the case is that the Plaintiffs/ Appellants herein, in the year 1988, filed a Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction before the Trial Court against the Defendants/ Respondents with respect to a piece of land measuring 08 Marlas comprised of Survey No. 85 situate at Qasba Bala, Nowshera, stating therein that the Defendants/ Respondents, without any right, title, claim or interest over the aforesaid 08 Marlas of land, tried to encroach upon the same by raising a boundary wall and covering the same.

03. The Defendants/ Respondents appeared before the Trial Court and filed their Written Statement in opposition to the said Suit. It was stated that the Suit land was acquired by the Government from the husband of Plaintiff No.1/ Appellant No.1 herein in the year 1962-63 and that the Defendants/ Respondents herein are in possession of the Suit land since then. They further averred that they raised construction on the Suit land in the shape of Labour Sarai of the Labour Department, road and the construction of NAC, Nowshera. It was also averred that the Plaintiffs/ Appellants herein have never been in possession of the Suit land and that the Plaintiffs/ Appellants herein had sold the land in Survey No. 85 to different persons and kept the land for lanes and drains, as such, there remained no land with the owner in Survey No. 85. It had been further pleaded by the Defendants/ Respondents herein that there was a barbed wire fence put by the Defendants/ Respondents herein which was being replaced by a solid wall. It was urged that the Suit land belonged to and is in possession of the Defendants/ Respondents, as such, the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs/ Appellants deserved to be dismissed.

04. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues for the trial of the case:

1. Whether Suit land measuring 08 Marlas comprising Khasra No. 85 of Qasba Bala, Nowshera is in ownership and possession of the Plaintiffs? OPP;

2. Whether the Defendants want to take possession of the Suit land illegally by forcibly constructing retention wall (Dangah) around it? OPP; and

3. Relief?

05. Thereafter, the parties led their evidence, documentary as well as oral, before the learned Trial Court. The Plaintiffs/ Appellants herein recorded the statement of their authorized Attorney, namely, Labu Ram, being well conversant with the facts of the case. In addition to his statement, the statements of six other persons were also recorded by the Plaintiffs/ Appellants for establishing the possession on the Suit land. The Defendants/ Respondents also recorded the statements of as many as six witnesses.

06. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence brought on record, decided all the issues in favour of the Defendants/ Respondents and against the Plaintiffs/ Appellants and dismissed the Suit vide Judgment and Decree dated 30th of May, 2002.

07. The Plaintiffs/ Appellants, feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, challenged the same by way of Civil First Appeal before the First Appellate Court at Rajouri, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Trial Court has based its findings on illegal assumptions and surmises, while appreciating the evidence on record; that the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the Plaintiffs/ Appellants, proves the case