The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent evidence, including documentary evidence, to prove possessory title over a property. The judgment emphasizes the presumption of title based on possession and the inability to benefit from the weakness of the opposing party's case.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Plaintiffs are in regular second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.

2. Plaintiffs No.1 to 3 claimed that they are owners of the plot having dimensions i.e. East: house of Hans Raj, West: gali, North: plot of Buta Singh and South: plot of Joginder Singh as per site plan Mark B. Plaintiffs No.4 and 5 claimed themselves to be owners of another plot having dimensions i.e. East: house of Pawan Kumar measuring 80', West: gali, North: plot of Harpreet Singh measuring 70' and South: plot of Amar Chand measuring 65' as per site plan Mark C. Plaintiffs pleaded that they and their predecessor-in-interest were old biswedar/owners of the suit property. Adjacent land to the land of the defendant was also under their ownership and possession i.e.

East: 17' 6'' gali shareaam;

West: 17' 6'' self remaining plot;

North: 64 house of Smt. Kalanwanti;

South: 64 house of Maghar Mal etc.

The house was constructed by the plaintiffs for the purpose of tethering cattles. Plaintiffs further pleaded that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C were initiated and Tehsildar was appointed as Receiver who took possession of the property from the plaintiffs. Ultimately, Sub Divisional Magistrate opined that the matter be tried before the Civil Court.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendant No.1 pleaded that he is exclusive owner of the suit property from the time of his ancestral. Suit property is also the part of property measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas belonging to defendant No.1. On 11.02.2006, revenue authorities got the suit land forcibly vacated from defendant No.1 and throw away his belongingness/domestic material outside the premises in an illegal manner. The electricity and water connections were in the name of the defendants.

4. Both the parties went to trial. Issue No.1 was "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration as well as injunction as prayed for by them with respect to the disputed property on the grounds so mentioned in the plaint? OPP

Plaintiffs sought three reliefs. Firstly for the declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of possessory title. Secondly, issuance of mandate to the Tehsildar for return of possession of the suit property to them and thirdly, issuance of injunction against defendant No.1, restraining him from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed themselves to be old biswedar through their predecessor-in-interest who were owners of the suit property as well as adjacent property since long. They claimed that some of the property was sold to Kalawati who in turn sold the land to the defendants. Plaintiffs specifically pleaded that they had done the construction of the house and the said premises was being used for tethering the cattles, but the defendants were adamant to take forcible possession, so proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C were initiated and Tehsildar was appointed as Receiver who took possession of the suit property from them. Since the land is situated within the lal dora, therefore, no documentary evidence qua title was produced by any of the party. In the absence of documentary evidence, possession by itself is a presumptive proof of title.

5. As per stand taken by the defendants, earlier one Buta Singh filed a suit. The said suit was dismissed. Plaintiffs were adamant to take forcible possession of the land which was never in the ownership of the plaintiffs. In fact, Tehsildar took possession of the suit land from the defendants. Plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs and they cannot take benefit of weakness of the defendants' case (if any). Since there was no title in favour of the plaintiffs, therefore, the Court had to weigh the oral evidence brought on record by the parties. Plaintiffs could not lead any documentary evidence qua title of the suit property. The possessory ti