The final and conclusive nature of an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the relevance of evidence in establishing possession were central to the judgment.

Kiran Anand Lall, J.

1. The dispute between the parties pertains to a residential plot comprised of 6 marlas area towards the south-east portion of khasra No. 1566 and 2 marlas area towards the north-east portion of khasra No. 1567. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the plot vide registered sale-deed dated 24.6.1981 for Rs. 2,5007- from Girraj Singh and Hari Raj Singh sons of Raghubir Singh. She also alleged that, in fact, she had been in its continuous, open, and peaceful possession, for the last 13 years, to the knowledge of all. She had paid part of its sale-price also, to the vendors, long back. But, as she was poor, the execution of sale-deed was postponed, and it was agreed that sale-deed would be executed when she was in a position to pay the remaining sale-price. She constructed open chhapper and a room on this plot. On 26.7.1981, the defendants came to her house and wanted to disturb her peaceful possession thereof. They beat her son, and a case was got registered by her, in this regard. Even thereafter, they did not desist from interfering with her possession. Therefore, she filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her possession over the property indicated as ABCD in the site plan, Ex.PW3/2, attached with the plaint.

2. The defendants denied plaintiffs ownership as well as possession over the house. According to them, the disputed plot measures 14 marlas and is owned as well as possessed by them. It is a part of northern-eastern portion of khasra No. 1566. After having purchased it vide registered sale-deed dated 2.5.1978 for Rs. 2,500/-, they have constructed a chhapper, one room, and a cattle shed thereon. They have been residing in it, from the very beginning. Locus-standi of the plaintiff to file the suit was challenged and so was its maintainability in the form it was filed. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had no cause of action.

3. Trial was conducted in respect of the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the suit plot? OPP

2. Whether plaintiff purchased the suit land of paras No. 1 and 2 for a valuable consideration, if so to what effect? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff is in continue possession of the suit property for the more than 12 years, as alleged? If so to what effect? OPP.

4. Whether the suit property is comprised in khasra No. 1566 and 1567, if so to what effect? OPP

5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD

7. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants? OPP

8. Whether defendant No. 1 purchased 14 marlas of land out of khasra No. 1566 vide sale deed dated 2.5.78 for a consideration if so to what effect? OPD

9. Relief.

4. The trial court found merit in the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. The lower appellate court, however, did not agree with the verdict. It accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit.

5. This is now regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the verdict of the first appellate court.

6. For the decision of appeal, the following questions were framed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, as the substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether an order passed by an Executive Court Under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is binding upon the civil court on the question of title and right of possession?

(ii) Whether entries made in Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari and mutation entry can be ignored completely for the purpose of determining the ownership and possession?

(iii) Whether a co-sharer can sell area more than his share?

(iv) Whether suit for partition is the proper course for a co-sharer to obtain his share?

(v) Whether an admission made by party regarding possession in a criminal proceeding is relevant in considering possession in Civil Proceedings?

(vi) Whether an adverse inference has to be taken against the party, who summoned the witness, but does not record