JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J. (Oral) 

1. The appellant/defendant, being gravely aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree dated 21.07.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Jind in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 16.07.1997, whereby the well-reasoned and judicious judgment and decree dated 11.06.1997 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana in Civil Suit No. 226 dated 07.04.1994, titled "Kapoor Singh v. Hardeva and Others" was erroneously set aside, most respectfully invokes the appellate and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, through the present Regular Second Appeal (for short to be referred as "RSA"). The appellant humbly beseech this Court to restore the lawful and well-merited decree passed by the learned Trial Court and to redress the substantial miscarriage of justice occasioned by the impugned appellate judgment.

1.1 It is further submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are vitiated by manifest illegality, perversity, and a fundamental misdirection in law. The findings recorded therein rest upon a gross mis-appreciation of evidence and an erroneous application of settled legal principles, thereby culminating in grave and palpable injustice to the appellant. The impugned judgments, being unsustainable in law and equity, warrants interference by this Court. The appellant, therefore, most earnestly pray that this Court be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and to reinstate the well-reasoned, lawful, and equitable decree passed by the learned Trial Court, in the paramount interest of justice.

2. For the sake of precision and procedural consistency, the parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to according to their respective status before the learned Trial Court, namely, as the plaintiff and the defendants. The essential facts and background circumstances culminating in the present appeal are succinctly set forth here-in-below for the kind consideration of this Court:-

"The plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession of the suit land as detailed in the plaint. It is averred that plaintiff and defendant set no. 3 are the rightful owners of the said land. The plaintiff had the land demarcated by the 'Halka Kanungo', and the report along with the encroachment plan is annexed with the plaint. It is alleged that about six months ago, defendant set no. 1, in connivance with defendants set no. 2, encroached upon the land as per the said report. Despite repeated requests to remove the encroachment and deliver possession to the plaintiff and defendants set No. 3, defendant set No. 1 failed to comply, necessitating the filing of this suit."

3. Upon issuance of notice of the suit, respondents were duly served. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It was specifically contended that no encroachment was made on any part of the suit land. The defendants further pleaded that a 'pacca' street had been constructed by the Gram Panchayat about 20 years ago, which now vests in the Panchayat, and hence, the question of encroachment upon a public street does not arise.

4. Upon meticulous consideration of the pleadings, documentary evidence, and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the Court deems it appropriate to crystallize the following issues for determination, so as to facilitate a comprehensive and judicious adjudication of the respective claims and contentions raised herein:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property? OPP

2. If issue no. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession, if so, to what effect? OPP

3. Relief.

5. Both parties were granted sufficient opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence in substantiation of their respective pleadings. Upon the culmination of the trial and after due consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel on either side, the learned Civil Judge (Junior D