The main legal point established in the judgment is the affirmation of the plaintiff's entitlement to possession and the dismissal of the appeal based on the lack of merit and delay.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. This regular second appeal filed by the appellant-defendant No.1 arises from the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, affirming that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri dated 26.8.2011 vide which the suit of the plaintiff for possession, was decreed.

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The plaintiff was owner in possession of the land measuring 5 kanals 18 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Mauja Rankoli, Sub Tehsil Bound Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani, as detailed in para 1 of the plaint. Defendant No.1 had taken the land measuring 7 kanals 9 marlas on lease for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per annum on 1.10.2004 from Shri Bir Singh vide registered lease deed dated 18.10.2004 for the installation of a petrol pump from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Defendant No.1 had leased out the said land vide lease agreement dated 31.12.2004 to Hindustan Petroleum Limited for the installation of the petrol pump. Defendant No.1 had unauthorizedly encroached upon 16 marlas land of the plaintiff and constructed a boundary wall. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to vacate the said land, but to no effect. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction. The said suit was contested by defendant No.1 by filing a written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded therein that defendant No.1 had raised the construction in the presence of the person from whom he had taken the land on lease. It was further pleaded that no demarcation was carried out at the spot and if there was any such demarcation then the same was only a paper transaction. Although, defendants No.2 and 3 were proceeded exparte but they had filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded therein that defendants No.2 and 3 had no concern with the physical possession of the suit land for boundary wall of the petrol pump raised by defendant No.1. The rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The plaintiff filed the replications controverting the averments made in the written statements and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession qua the suit land upto the extent of 0 Kanal 16 Marlas, if so, its effect? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Relief.

4. The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties held that the plaintiff had been able to prove the factum that the defendant had encroached upon her land measuring 0 kanal 16 marlas covered by rectangle and killa No. 101//16/1/2 into their boundary wall. Further, it was held that the jamabandi Ex.P3/B also proved the ownership of the plaintiff over the land in dispute. Accordingly, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.2011 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The conclusion recorded by the trial court reads thus:-

“From the evidence led on the part of the plaintiff came on the case file, the plaintiff has also been able to prove hat some debris (Malba) is lying in her land covered by rectangle and Khasra No.101//25 as shown by the Local Commissioner. There is no doubt that this land covered by rectangle No. 101//25 is also owned by the plaintiff as there is no such objection on part of the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been able to prove the factum that the defendants have encroached upon the land owned by the plaintiff measuring 0 Kanal 16 Marlas covered by rectangle and Killa No. 101//16/1/2 into thei