J U D G E M E N T

By way of this appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge(II), Mandi, District Mandi, (HP), in Civil Appeal No. 3/14/2011, dated 07.12.2017, whereby learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jogindernagar, District Mandi, HP, in Civil Suit No. 194/2005, dated 01.04.2011, in terms whereof, learned Trial Court allowed the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim of the defendants No. 1 to 4/appellants herein.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under:-

Respondent-Punjab State Power Corporation, Patiala, (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the plaintiff’ for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration and possession against the defendants on the ground that right from the year 1925, the plaintiff was in possession of the entire Shanan Power House, which was at Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and the plaintiff was owner of the suit land measuring 0-8-2 bighas, situated over khasra No. 223, Mauza Shanan, Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P. The predecessor in interest of defendants No. 1 to 4 occupied the premises unauthorisedly. Plaintiff had constructed two rooms shed for the purpose of mess where food was served to the security persons deployed for security of the Shanan Power House. Mess activities continued till 1990. Thereafter, the shed remained vacant and in the possession of the plaintiff who utilized the same for accommodating their staff. Occasionally, one Bhagat Ram, who was the Constable used to stay there. After his death in the year 1993, his family members started using the shed which was not objected to by the plaintiff as the same was lying vacant, who when the premises was required, asked defendants No. 1 to 4 to vacate the same but the defendants did not do so, and it was in these circumstances, that the suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land and possession thereof be got handed over to them from defendants No. 1 to 4. It was further the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 5 had got attested the mutation of ownership in its name at the back of the plaintiff which was wrong and not binding upon the plaintiff.

3. The suit was resisted by defendants No. 1 to 4 inter alia on the ground of maintainability as well as merit. On merits, defendants No.1 to 4 took the stand that they were in possession of the suit land since long and their possession was open, peaceful and hostile to the knowledge of the plaintiff as well as the State Government since 1960 and same had matured into a title. Defendants No. 1 to 4 also preferred a counter claim seeking a decree of declaration that they were in possession of the property as its rightful owners and that they had perfected their titled by way of adverse possession.

4. Defendant No. 5 resisted the suit on the ground that it was owner of the suit land and further resisted the counter claim on the ground that the possession on the suit land was that of the plaintiff.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following Issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land as claimed in the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for possession? OPP

3. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 4 have become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession? OPD1-4

4. Whether the mutation of the ownership attested in favour of the State Government is null and void? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive occupation charges @ 500 per month from the defendants No. 1 to 4 from January, 2002 onwards? OPP

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD-5

7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD-5

8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD-5

9. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and