The court affirmed that documentary evidence of property ownership supersedes claims of possession without supporting evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Suvir Sehgal, J.

Assailing the concurrent finding recorded by the two courts, appellant-plaintiff is before this Court by way of instant second appeal.

2. Claiming to be owner in exclusive possession of a residential plot measuring 450 square yards, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession and from alienating the suit property. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that Sh. Karmu @ Karma, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 10, was the owner in possession of 1/4th share in Khasra No. 246//23/2 in Khewat No.2900//2797 Khatauni No.3327 of Gair Mumkin land measuring 2 kanals 6 Marlas. He sold 1/4th share in the land measuring 400 square yards to the plaintiff @ Rs.35 per square yard in the year 1985 for a total consideration of Rs.14,000/-. Plaintiff claims that he purchased another 50 square yards for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- which was paid in the presence of witnesses. Plaintiff made construction on the plot and is utilizing the same. However, Karmu never executed sale deed in his favour and after his death, defendants No.1 to 10 have started interfering in his possession on the pretext that they have inherited the suit land.

3. Upon notice, suit has been contested by defendants No. 1 to 13 by filing a reply. Besides raising various preliminary submissions it was stated that defendants No.1 to 10 were the owners of the suit property and after death of their father, they had inherited it along with their mother. Reference was made to the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 to show that the suit was originally owned by Chandan Singh, Dharma, Karmu and Smt. Banti in equal share and after the death of Karmu, his widow and children became the owners.

A mutation No.1886 dated 20.11.2004 was sanctioned. On death of Smt. Banti, mother of defendants No.11 and 12, her % share also devolved on her legal heirs. A General Power of Attorney dated 23.04.2008 was executed by the heirs of Smt. Banti, in favour of Jagbir Singh son of Karmu, defendant No.3, who entered into an agreement for sale dated 20.05.2008 of 544 square yards of land with Rajbir Singh defendant No.14, for a consideration of Rs.1000/- per square yards. The proposed vendee paid an amount of Rs.1 Lac as earnest money and vacant possession of the land was handed over to him in part performance of the contract. Rajbir Singh, raised boundary walls and installed a gate on the land alienated to him. The construction was demolished by the plaintiff and he encroached upon the land. Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was denied and it was averred that Karmu was the owner of 347.90 square yard and could not have effected the sale of 450 square yards as alleged by the plaintiff. In their counter claim, defendants prayed for passing of a decree of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering in the possession of Rajbir Singh. Defendant No.14 filed a separate written statement taking the same stand. During pendency of the trial, a statement was made by counsel for the plaintiff and suit was dismissed as withdrawn qua the plaintiff on 01.05.2005 and the counter claim was ordered to be treated as a separate suit for the purposes of adjudication. Plaintiff filed a replication controverting the averments of the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issue:-

(i) Whether defendants No. 1 to 13 and now defendant No.14 are the owner in possession of the suit property, as alleged? OPD.

(ii) If the above issue is proved in affirmative, whether the defendants are entitled for relief of permanent injunction restraining pl