Possession follows title, and the concept of possession in law was crucial in determining the ownership and possession of the disputed property.

JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J. - The present appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.1991 passed in Civil Appeal No.RT 64 of 1989 titled as Chandi Dass v. Baldev Raj and another whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1989 passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No.408 dated 09.12.1986 titled as Chandi Dass v. Baldev Raj and another, had been set aside, the appeal had been accepted and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent had been decreed.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder in the same order as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Broadly but briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:-

The plaintiff-Chandi Dass filed the aforementioned suit on the averments that the property detailed out in the head note of the plaint (hereinafter to be mentioned as the 'disputed property') was originally owned by his maternal grandfather Sh. Kailash Nath. A house was previously existing on this property but as due to old age of its construction, the same had fallen down, therefore, it was now existing in the shape of a plot. After the death of Sh. Kailash Nath, the disputed property was inherited by his mother Smt. Punna Devi and after her demise, the plaintiff had become owner in possession of the same by way of succession. It was further pleaded that the property of Shakti Parkash and Chint Ram who were brothers was existing on the northern side of the disputed property. In the year 1970, Shakti Parkash had submitted proposed site plan for construction of a house over the said property with Municipal Committee, Kharar. The same property as owned by Shakti Parkash and Chint Ram had been subsequently sold to defendants No.1 and 2. It was alleged that since the disputed property which was adjoining the property sold to defendants No.1 and 2, was lying in the form of a vacant plot, therefore, by taking advantage of that fact, the defendants No.1 and 2 were bent upon encroaching the same and had even collected building material at the spot for raising construction thereon. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for passing a decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from encroaching upon the disputed property.

4. Impugning and challenging, denying and refuting the allegations/averments in the plaint, the defendants filed written statement; the gist and kernel of which is that they were bona fide purchasers of the disputed property for valuable consideration and hence were protected. It was admitted that the disputed property was previously a house and had subsequently become a plot but it was denied that it was ever owned by Sh. Kailash Nath or was inherited by the plaintiff. It was asserted that the disputed property was previously owned by the predecessor-in-interest of Chint Ram and by virtue of a family settlement, it had fallen to his share and he had sold the same to them for a sale consideration amount of Rs.20,000/-vide sale deed dated 24.10.1986 and they had become owner of this property and were also in possession of the same. Objections as to maintainability, locus standi, non-joinder of necessary parties and further that the site plan as produced by the plaintiff was wrong, had been taken and dismissal of the suit had been prayed for.

5. The plaintiff filed replication controverting the pleas taken in the written statement and re-asserting those of the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were culled out:-

1. Whether plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as alleged? OPP.

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

3. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

4. Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD.

5. Whether defendants are bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice? If so, its effect? OPD.

6. Relief.

6. The parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in s