In civil suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to substantiate claims of exclusive possession, especially when conflicting evidence exists, such as revenue records indicating joint possession.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J. -

CM-11704-CII-2011

This is an application under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the appellants for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures Al to A4, A6, A17 to A19 (wrongly written as Pl to P4, P6, P17 to P19) forming part of trial Court and Appellate Court record.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and Annexures Al to A4, A6, A17 to A19 are taken on record.

CM-11705-CII-2011

This is an application under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the appellants for permission to file additional documents.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and additional documents i.e. Al to A19 are taken on record.

MAIN CASE

The defendants are in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed a suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the cultivating possession of the plaintiff over the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 170/164 Min rect. And Killa Nos. 145/6/2(1-5), 15(7-12), 16(4-0), 17(8- 0), 18/ 1(7-0) and Khewat No.253/242 Min. rect. and Killa No.72/14(8-0) measuring 35 K-17M situated within the revenue estate of village Mohana, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The case as set out in the plaint was that Risala- father of the plaintiff as well as the three defendants - was in cultivating possession of the suit land. Risala had died on 29.12.1998. During his lifetime, he had divided his self-acquired property amongst the plaintiff and the defendants. He had retained the suit land for his maintenance. As Risala was living with the plaintiff and as the plaintiff was maintaining and serving Risala, Risala had relinquished his cultivating possession pertaining to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1996; and put the plaintiff in possession of the same. It was the pleaded case of the plaintiff that since the rabi crop of 1996-97, the plaintiff has been in cultivating possession of the suit land. However, of late the defendants had started claiming their rights over the suit land even though the plaintiff had requested them many times to admit his claim over the suit property, but they refused to do so. Hence, present suit was filed on 16.7.1999.

3. Upon notice, the defendants had appeared and filed written statement resisting the suit. Besides formal objections, the defendants had stated that Risala was co-sharer of the suit land. The cultivating position of the suit land was with all the defendants and not with the plaintiff alone. After the death of Risala on 29.12.1998, the parties were co-sharer in possession of the suit land. It was further stated in the written statement that Risala had given l/4th share out of his entire holding to the parties to the suit. lt was contended that Risala was living with the defendants as well as the plaintiff and he was happy with the service of the defendants and had therefore relinquished his cultivating right in the land in favour of the defendants as well as the plaintiff. It was accordingly averred that the plaintiff alone was not entitled to claim exclusive possession over the suit land. Accordingly, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. Replication was filed.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land to the exclusion of the defendants? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of Permanent Injunction ? OPP.

3. Whether the defendants are in joint possession of the suit land as co-sharers? OPP.

4. Relief."

6. On the basis of oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the le