IMPORTANT POINT
Person who is a trespasser on the land and is evicted from the said land by any person other than the true owner, the trespasser has right to file a suit and claim a decree for possession on the basis of his possession and possessory title.

Deepak Gupta, J.—This Regular Second Appeal by the Defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Una in Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1994 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendants’) and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class (1) Amb, District Una in Civil Suit No. 72 of 1999 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had a suit claiming that the suit land was earlier in possession of Chanan Devi who was a tenant at Will and after her death, the plaintiffs had succeeded to her right of tenancy. It is alleged that the defendants were threatening to interfere and take away the possession and, therefore the suit for injunction and in the alternative for possession was filed by the plaintiffs.

3. The defendants contested the suit and according to the defendants, neither the plaintiffs nor Chanan Devi had ever been in possession of the suit land. According to the defendants, the suit land was owned and possessed by Harnam Singh and after his death, it was succeeded to by his son Nathu Ram who vide agreement dated 16.10.1985 agreed to sell 6 marlas of land out of the suit land to Smt. Ram Dulari, wife of defendant No. 2 and the possession of the same was handed over to her.

4. The learned trial court held that the suit land belongs to the State Government. It also held that Chanan Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit land but came to the conclusion that her possession was that of a trespasser and not as a tenant. It was held that part of the suit land was in possession of the plaintiffs and part in possession of the defendants No. 1, 3 and 4. Since the defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 had no right over the suit land which had earlier been in possession of Chanan Devi and thereafter, in possession of the plaintiffs, it was held that the plaintiffs had a better title than defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 and decree for possession of the suit land to the extant of 9½ marlas was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the remaining suit land. This judgment has been confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Una.

5. Though the Regular Second Appeal was admitted on another substantial question of law, I feel that the only substantial question of law which arises in this case is; “whether a person who is not the owner of the land but proves that he was in possession of the land and has been dispossessed by a person who is not the true owner can pray for a decree of possession against such person?”.

6. As stated above, both the Courts below have given a finding of fact that earlier Smt. Chanan Devi and thereafter, the plaintiffs were coming in possession of the suit land. It has also been found that the suit land was not owned by them and the land belongs to the State Governments. It also stands proved that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed by the defendants No. 1,3 and 4 from 7½ marlas.

7. Sh. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has strenuously argued that the plaintiffs are not the owner or the suit land and no decree of possession can be granted in their favour. In support of his contention, Sh. Chauhan has placed reliance on Nagar Palika, Jind & Jagat Singh AIR 1995(82) SC 1377, L.N. Aswathama and another v. P. Prakash 2009(13) SCC 229, T.K. Mohammed Abubucker (dead) through LRs. and others v. P.S.M. Ahmed Abdul Khander and Others. 2009 (14) SCC 224 in my view, none of these judgments is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8. On the other hand, Sh. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nair Service Society Ltd. v. K