Muttaci Jeyapaul, J.

1. The plaintiff aggrieved by the concurrent verdicts of the Courts below dismissing his suit for recovery of possession has preferred the present second appeal. It is the contention of the plaintiff Ashok Kumar that he being the co-sharer is the owner of the suit property. The defendant is in illegal possession of the suit land. The plaintiff requested the defendant many a time to deliver possession of the suit land, but the latter did not agree. The suit laid by the father of the defendant Smt. Sham Wati was dismissed by this Court on 20.10.1981. Alleging that the defendant did not deliver possession of the suit land in spite of such a decree passed as against the defendant, the present suit has been filed for recovery of possession of the suit land.

2. The defendant contended in her written statement that it was wrong that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit property. The father of the defendant has been in possession for a very long period, at any rate, for more than 12 years and therefore, he has become the owner of the suit property. The defendant and her father have been in continuous and open possession of the suit property prior and subsequent to the earlier decision of this Court. The plaintiff had the absolute knowledge about the adverse possession set up by the defendant and her father. The defendant has now become the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. Alleging that the plaintiff has no right in the suit property, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW1. Ex.P1, copy of the jamabandi for the year 1976-77 and Ex.P2, the judgement passed by this Court in RSA No. 1795 of 1970 decided on 20.10.1981 were produced. On the side of the defendants, the defendant's husband by name Maya Bishan was examined as DW1. Certified copy of jamabandi for the years 1981-82, 1976-77, 1971-72, 1966-67 and 1957-58 were marked as Exs.D1 to D6 respectively, on the side of the defendant.

4. The Courts below having thoroughly adverted to the evidence on record arrived at a conclusion that the defendant, prior thereto her father, has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from the year 1957-58 as established under Exs.D1 to D6. Holding that the defendant has established her title by adverse possession, the plaintiff was non-suited.

5. The following substantial questions of law have arisen for determination:-

1. Whether the Courts below have misread the evidence and arrived at perverse findings.

2. Whether the possession, if any, with the father of the defendant prior to the termination of the earlier suit laid by him could be tacked with the possession with the defendant for determining the issue of adverse possession claimed by the defendant under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

6. It is an admitted fact that the respondent's father instituted a suit in the year 1968 as against the appellant herein for declaration of title on the ground that he had perfected title by adverse possession. The said suit ultimately terminated in dismissal as per the judgement passed by this Court under Ex.P2 on 20.10.1981. This Court, having found that though the father of the respondent herein had been in adverse possession for about 8 long years prior to the filing of the said suit in 1968, he failed to establish that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by adverse possession for over a period of 12 years as contemplated under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, held that he was not entitled to a decree for declaration of title. In other words, it is crystal clear from the above verdict passed by this Court that the father of the respondent had not only been in possession of the property, but had been in effective adverse possession of the property about 8 years prior to the filing of the suit by him in the year 1968.

7. On a careful analysis of the evidence adduced by the respondent, it is found that the respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document