Suit for Possession – Unless and until the title is not proved, the suit for possession cannot be decreed.
Burden of Proof – Plaintiff cannot be permitted to rely upon the one line here and there in the examination-in-chief or cross examination – Plaintiffs have to stand on their legs.

Mr. Amit Rawal J.(Oral).:- C.M. No.10419-C of 2017

1. The application for impleading the legal representatives of deceased-appellant No.2 namely Dharambir Singh is allowed subject to all just exceptions and the legal representatives are ordered to be brought on record.

2. Application is allowed.

RSA No.1977 of 2013

3. The appellants-defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree rendered by the lower Appellate Court whereby the suit of the respondent-plaintiff seeking possession of the property in dispute has been decreed.

4. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties, it would be apt to give preface of the matter. Sajno Devi and Kanto daughter of Dharam Singh instituted the suit for possession of house situated within the abadi deh of village Ladrawan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar as per the description given in the plaint on the premise that earlier their father namely Dharam Singh was owner in possession of one residential house measuring 178 square yards. The appellant No.1-defendant No.1 got executed a release deed in respect of the agricultural land from the father of the plaintiffs. The said release deed was challenged by the plaintiffs but the suit was dismissed against which appeal was filed and in the appeal, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. Earlier the defendants had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs regarding the suit property and the same was decreed in favour of the defendants on 17.01.2003. The appeal preferred before the lower Appellate Court was also dismissed vide judgment dated 28.05.2003. However, the defendants were found in possession of the suit property and injunction was granted not to dispossess except in due course of law, therefore, the necessity arose to file the present suit for possession. The plaintiffs also filed application before the Electricity Department regarding the connection and complaint against the defendants was given to the police that the defendant had taken forcible possession of the property in the year 2000.

5. The aforementioned suit was contested by the appellants-defendants by taking the customary preliminary objections and in para 1 of the preliminary objection denied that the plaintiffs were neither owners nor in possession of the suit property, much less, it was owned and possessed by the defendants. While giving reply on merits, it was stated as under:-

“1. That para No.1 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is vehemently denied that the father of the plaintiffs was owner and in possession of the dispute house as alleged by them. It is submitted that the suit property is owned and possessed by the defendants and the plaintiffs have no concern with the same in any manner whatsoever. The true facts of the case are as under:-

That the father of the plaintiffs Sh. Dharam Singh and the defendants are the descents of a common ancestor namely Mandroop.

The pedigree table of the parties is as under:-

				Mandroop
		Ram Pal				Har Pal
Todar		Budh Ram				Khubi		Ram Rikh
Harnand				Sita		Mukh Ram		Bhuru
		Dharam Singh (adopted)				Suchche
Smt. Mishro				Jage		Dharam Singh (Adopted by Sita)		Bhim Singh
				Bhup Singh		Om Parkash		Sukhbir
				Satbir Singh		Dalbir Singh D1		Dharambir Singh D2
Smt. Chhoti	Smt.Shanti		Smt. Attari	Smt. Bhateri	Smt. Kantto P-2		Smt. Jaiwanti	Smt. Sajno P-1

That Dharam Singh was adopted by Sita. It is submitted that previously a sizeable residential property including the suit property was jointly owned and possessed by the Joint Hindu Family constituting the members shown in the pedigree table namely Dharam Singh adopted son of Sita, Jage and Bhim Singh s/o Suchche.

That on 15.6.1968 there was a verbal family settlement between Dharam Singh, Bhup Singh,