RSA No. 603 of 1990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mange Ram Ram Chander CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate and DEEPAK GUPTA, J. concurrent findings of the Courts below inasmuch as suit for possession regarding the property in dispute filed by plaintiff Ram Chander respondent through his LRs) The appeal filed by the defendant Mange Ram LRs) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 02.02.1990. 2. their status before the trial Court. 3.1 of the house in dispute, detailed in plaint, situated in village Kalawati. Said house is in possession of defendant as tenant since 28.04.1957 @ Rs.2/ month. After the death of Neki Ram, had settled at village Kalwa and so, he had rented out the same to defendant. Bahi entry to that effect was executed by defendant. Plaintiff required the house for his personal use. It was also alleged that the defendant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.01.1981. Defendant also made RSA No. 603 of 1990 Page N: 1 of 7 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 603 of 1990(O&M) Reserved on: 12.05.2025 Pronounced on: 14.05.2025 Mange Ram Versus Ram Chander CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Manuj Chadha, Advocate For the respondent. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This is defendant’s second regular appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below inasmuch as suit for possession regarding the property in dispute filed by plaintiff Ram Chander respondent through his LRs) was decreed by the trial Court o The appeal filed by the defendant Mange Ram was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 02.02.1990. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. According to plaintiff Ram Chander, he is the owner/ landlord of the house in dispute, detailed in plaint, situated in village Kalawati. Said house is in possession of defendant as tenant since 28.04.1957 @ Rs.2/ month. After the death of Neki Ram, the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had settled at village Kalwa and so, he had rented out the same to defendant. Bahi entry to that effect was executed by defendant. Plaintiff required the house for his personal use. It was also alleged that the fendant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.01.1981. Defendant also made of 7 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 603 of 1990(O&M) Reserved on: 12.05.2025 Pronounced on: 14.05.2025 …Appellant …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate This is defendant’s second regular appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below inasmuch as suit for possession regarding the property in dispute filed by plaintiff Ram Chander (now was decreed by the trial Court on 12.01.1989. The appeal filed by the defendant Mange Ram (now appellant through his was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 02.02.1990. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per According to plaintiff Ram Chander, he is the owner/ landlord of the house in dispute, detailed in plaint, situated in village Kalawati. Said house is in possession of defendant as tenant since 28.04.1957 @ Rs.2/- per the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had settled at village Kalwa and so, he had rented out the same to defendant. Bahi entry to that effect was executed by defendant. Plaintiff required the house for his personal use. It was also alleged that the fendant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.01.1981. Defendant also made Appellant Respondent This is defendant’s second regular appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below inasmuch as suit for possession (now n 12.01.1989. (now appellant through his In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per According to plaintiff Ram Chander, he is the owner/ landlord of the house in dispute, detailed in plaint, situated in village Kalawati. Said per the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had settled at village Kalwa and so, he had rented out the same to defendant. Bahi entry to that effect was executed by defendant. Plaintiff required the house for his personal use. It was also alleged that the fendant had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.01.1981. Defendant also made JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 603 of 1990 material alterations in the house in dispute by making kacha room and khor etc.. Legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also given to the defendant through the defendant failed to vacate the suit property. Hence the suit. 3.2 even denied the plaintiff to be owner of the house in dispute. He denied having executed any document. He denied having ever paid any rent. He further took the plea that even if it is found that at any point of time, plaintiff was owner of the house, but now he (defendant) being in adverse possession fo more than 12 years, has become owner thereof and as such, plaintiff is not entitled to sue for possession. With this stand, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3.3 3.4 parties was taken on record. 4. sought for recovery of arrears of rent and costs of notice was declined. The appeal filed by the defendant Mange Ramwas fou merit by the First Appellate Court and so, upholding the findings of the trial Court, the same was dismissed. 5. Ld. counsel for appellant entered into the witness box and therefore attorney could not be taken into consideration Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 relied by the plaintiff were not proved on record. entries Ex.P1 to being unregistered documents. to produce on record any document relating to his title to the suit property. Learned counsel contends that the evidence RSA No. 603 of 1990 Page N: 2 of 7 Pages material alterations in the house in dispute by making kacha room and khor etc.. Legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also given to the defendant through the counsel terminating his tenancy but defendant failed to vacate the suit property. Hence the suit. Defendant in his written statement denied the tenancy. He even denied the plaintiff to be owner of the house in dispute. He denied having executed any Bahi entry and alleged the same to be forged document. He denied having ever paid any rent. He further took the plea that even if it is found that at any point of time, plaintiff was owner of the house, but now he (defendant) being in adverse possession fo more than 12 years, has become owner thereof and as such, plaintiff is not entitled to sue for possession. With this stand, defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. In rejoinder, plaintiff reiterated his claim. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. Trial Court decreed the suit for possession, though the relief sought for recovery of arrears of rent and costs of notice was declined. The appeal filed by the defendant Mange Ramwas fou merit by the First Appellate Court and so, upholding the findings of the trial Court, the same was dismissed. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by counsel for appellant-defendant that plaintiff Ram entered into the witness box and therefore, attorney could not be taken into consideration Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 relied by the plaintiff were not proved on record. entries Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 otherwise also could not be taken into consideration being unregistered documents. It is further contended that plaintiff failed to produce on record any document relating to his title to the suit property. Learned counsel contends that the evidence of 7 Pages material alterations in the house in dispute by making kacha room and khor etc.. Legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also counsel terminating his tenancy but defendant failed to vacate the suit property. Hence the suit. Defendant in his written statement denied the tenancy. He even denied the plaintiff to be owner of the house in dispute. He denied Bahi entry and alleged the same to be forged document. He denied having ever paid any rent. He further took the plea that even if it is found that at any point of time, plaintiff was owner of the house, but now he (defendant) being in adverse possession for the last more than 12 years, has become owner thereof and as such, plaintiff is not entitled to sue for possession. With this stand, defendant prayed for In rejoinder, plaintiff reiterated his claim. re framed. Evidence produced by the Trial Court decreed the suit for possession, though the relief sought for recovery of arrears of rent and costs of notice was declined. The appeal filed by the defendant Mange Ramwas found to be devoid of any merit by the First Appellate Court and so, upholding the findings of the trial Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by defendant that plaintiff Ram Chander had not , the statement of his power of attorney could not be taken into consideration. Besides the Bahi entries Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 relied by the plaintiff were not proved on record. The Bahi Ex.P3 otherwise also could not be taken into consideration It is further contended that plaintiff failed to produce on record any document relating to his title to the suit property. Learned counsel contends that the evidence on record established that material alterations in the house in dispute by making kacha room and khor etc.. Legal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also counsel terminating his tenancy but Defendant in his written statement denied the tenancy. He even denied the plaintiff to be owner of the house in dispute. He denied Bahi entry and alleged the same to be forged document. He denied having ever paid any rent. He further took the plea that even if it is found that at any point of time, plaintiff was owner of the r the last more than 12 years, has become owner thereof and as such, plaintiff is not entitled to sue for possession. With this stand, defendant prayed for re framed. Evidence produced by the Trial Court decreed the suit for possession, though the relief sought for recovery of arrears of rent and costs of notice was declined. The nd to be devoid of any merit by the First Appellate Court and so, upholding the findings of the trial Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by Chander had not the statement of his power of esides the Bahi entries The Bahi Ex.P3 otherwise also could not be taken into consideration It is further contended that plaintiff failed to produce on record any document relating to his title to the suit property. on record established that JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 603 of 1990 defendant-appellant had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the judgments passed by the Courts below and to dismiss the suit of the plai 6. counsel for respondent the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by Courts below established beyond doubt that property in dispute. Learned counsel contends that mere fact that defendant raised the plea of having become owner by way of adverse possession, demolishes his stand Defendant failed to prove that he had become owner by way of adverse possession, having failed to establish the necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession. With all these submissions, prayer is made for dismissal of the appeal. 7. have appraised the record carefully. 8. for both the sides, it will be appropriate to reproduce the observations made by the First Ap defendant. These read as under: “9. the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the pleadings and evidence adduced by the partie find myself unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant findings given by the learned trial court that the plaintiff Ram been successful in proving his ownership of the house in dispute. It is now an admitted fact that the house in dispute is situate in the centre of village Kalawati. Copy Ex.P5 of the jamabandi, evidence of Gomand, Telu and Dariya have proved t RSA No. 603 of 1990 Page N: 3 of 7 Pages appellant had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the judgments passed by the Courts below and to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. Refuting the aforesaid contentions, it is urged by learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff that there is no scope for interference in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by Courts below established beyond doubt that it is the plaintiff property in dispute. Learned counsel contends that mere fact that defendant raised the plea of having become owner by way of adverse possession, demolishes his stand of denial of ndant failed to prove that he had become owner by way of adverse possession, having failed to establish the necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession. With all these submissions, prayer is made for dismissal of the appeal. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully. Before commenting on the rival contentions raised by counsel for both the sides, it will be appropriate to reproduce the observations made by the First Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of the defendant. These read as under:- Keeping into consideration the aforesaid arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties in the light the case law referred above. I find myself unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant - defendant Mange Ram. I fully concur with the ultimate findings given by the learned trial court that the plaintiff Ram been successful in proving his ownership of the house in dispute. It is now an admitted fact that the house in dispute is situate in the centre of village Kalawati. Copy Ex.P5 of the jamabandi, evidence of Gomand, Telu and Dariya have proved that plaintiff Ram Chander and his predecessors were of 7 Pages appellant had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the judgments passed by the Courts below and to dismiss the Refuting the aforesaid contentions, it is urged by learned plaintiff that there is no scope for interference in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by Courts below, which it is the plaintiff, who is the owner of the property in dispute. Learned counsel contends that mere fact that defendant raised the plea of having become owner by way of adverse of denial of the title of the plaintiff. ndant failed to prove that he had become owner by way of adverse possession, having failed to establish the necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession. With all these submissions, prayer is made This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and Before commenting on the rival contentions raised by counsel for both the sides, it will be appropriate to reproduce the observations pellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of the Keeping into consideration the aforesaid arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the pleadings and s in the light the case law referred above. I find myself unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel defendant Mange Ram. I fully concur with the ultimate findings given by the learned trial court that the plaintiff Ram Chander has been successful in proving his ownership of the house in dispute. It is now an admitted fact that the house in dispute is situate in the centre of village Kalawati. Copy Ex.P5 of the jamabandi, evidence of Gomand, Telu and hat plaintiff Ram Chander and his predecessors were appellant had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the judgments passed by the Courts below and to dismiss the Refuting the aforesaid contentions, it is urged by learned plaintiff that there is no scope for interference in which s the owner of the property in dispute. Learned counsel contends that mere fact that defendant raised the plea of having become owner by way of adverse the title of the plaintiff. ndant failed to prove that he had become owner by way of adverse possession, having failed to establish the necessary ingredients to constitute adverse possession. With all these submissions, prayer is made This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and Before commenting on the rival contentions raised by counsel for both the sides, it will be appropriate to reproduce the observations pellate Court, while dismissing the appeal of the Keeping into consideration the aforesaid arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the pleadings and s in the light the case law referred above. I find myself unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel defendant Mange Ram. I fully concur with the ultimate Chander has been successful in proving his ownership of the house in dispute. It is now an admitted fact that the house in dispute is situate in the centre of village Kalawati. Copy Ex.P5 of the jamabandi, evidence of Gomand, Telu and hat plaintiff Ram Chander and his predecessors were JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 603 of 1990 the proprietors of village Kalawati. It is further an admitted fact that defendant Mange Ram and his father Neki Ram are Neki Ram had migrated from village Bidhan and settled at villag The house in dispute is certainly situate in the It is a case of common knowledge that only the proprietors of a village do have their residences in the vicinity of there could be ownership of the house in dispute situate within the pertinent to mention here that defendant Mange Ram in his cross examination admitted that there was no other house of Ram Ch except the house in dispute in village Kalawati CHANDER KAY PASS ES MAKAN KAY ELEVA GAON MEIN OR KOI MAKAN NA HAI”). occupied the open site about 60 house in dispute thereon. This evidence of the defendant is beyond pleadings. Nowhere in his written statement he has so averred. It is also an admitted fact that defendant Mange Ram has no agricultural land in village Kalawati. It i judgment and decree, respectively, dated 19.11.1985 that this very Mange Ram had filed a suit for permanent injunction against this very plaintiff Ram Chander and four others seeking a decree for permanent in to the effect that Ram Chander and others be restrain forcible possession of the house in dispute in his possession. Strangely enough, defendant Mange Ram in his evidence denied that he had ever filed suit for injunction against the copies Exs. PX and PY of the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1985. Evidence of defendant’s witness Ishwar has been rightly discarded by the learned trial court for the reason that he was not able to tell correctly th boundaries of the house in dispute. He (Ishwar), aged 55 years, was not able to tell the origin of ownership of the house in dispute. Though the plaintiff has not stepped into the witness box, but his special attorney Gomand and his witnesses Telu and Da and claim. They all have given history of the house in dispute and there are no reasons to disbelieve or discard their evidence. Another factor which goes in favour of the plaintiff Ram Chander is that defendant Mange has RSA No. 603 of 1990 Page N: 4 of 7 Pages the proprietors of village Kalawati. It is further an admitted fact that defendant Mange Ram and his father Neki Ram are Neki Ram had migrated from village Bidhan and settled at villag The house in dispute is certainly situate in the It is a case of common knowledge that only the proprietors of a village do have their residences in the vicinity of LalDora there could be no documentary evidence ownership of the house in dispute situate within the pertinent to mention here that defendant Mange Ram in his cross examination admitted that there was no other house of Ram Ch except the house in dispute in village Kalawati CHANDER KAY PASS ES MAKAN KAY ELEVA GAON MEIN OR KOI MAKAN NA HAI”). Defendant Mange Ram in his evidence stated that his father had occupied the open site about 60-70 years back an house in dispute thereon. This evidence of the defendant is beyond pleadings. Nowhere in his written statement he has so averred. It is also an admitted fact that defendant Mange Ram has no agricultural land in village Kalawati. It is manifest from the copy Ex.PX and Ex.PY of the judgment and decree, respectively, dated 19.11.1985 that this very Mange Ram had filed a suit for permanent injunction against this very plaintiff Ram Chander and four others seeking a decree for permanent in to the effect that Ram Chander and others be restrain forcible possession of the house in dispute in his possession. Strangely enough, defendant Mange Ram in his evidence denied that he had ever filed suit for injunction against the plaintiff. He stands falsified from the copies Exs. PX and PY of the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1985. Evidence of defendant’s witness Ishwar has been rightly discarded by the learned trial court for the reason that he was not able to tell correctly th boundaries of the house in dispute. He (Ishwar), aged 55 years, was not able to tell the origin of ownership of the house in dispute. Though the plaintiff has not stepped into the witness box, but his special attorney Gomand and his witnesses Telu and Daria have fully supported his cause and claim. They all have given history of the house in dispute and there are no reasons to disbelieve or discard their evidence. Another factor which goes in favour of the plaintiff Ram Chander is that defendant Mange has of 7 Pages the proprietors of village Kalawati. It is further an admitted fact that defendant Mange Ram and his father Neki Ram are non-proprietors and Neki Ram had migrated from village Bidhan and settled at village Kalawati. The house in dispute is certainly situate in the LalDora of village Kalawati. It is a case of common knowledge that only the proprietors of a village do LalDora. It is understandable that no documentary evidence i.e., revenue record to prove the ownership of the house in dispute situate within the LalDora. It would be pertinent to mention here that defendant Mange Ram in his cross- examination admitted that there was no other house of Ram Chander except the house in dispute in village Kalawati (YOH THEEK HAI KE RAM CHANDER KAY PASS ES MAKAN KAY ELEVA GAON MEIN OR KOI MAKAN NA Defendant Mange Ram in his evidence stated that his father had 70 years back and then constructed the house in dispute thereon. This evidence of the defendant is beyond pleadings. Nowhere in his written statement he has so averred. It is also an admitted fact that defendant Mange Ram has no agricultural land in s manifest from the copy Ex.PX and Ex.PY of the judgment and decree, respectively, dated 19.11.1985 that this very Mange Ram had filed a suit for permanent injunction against this very plaintiff Ram Chander and four others seeking a decree for permanent injunction to the effect that Ram Chander and others be restrained from taking forcible possession of the house in dispute in his possession. Strangely enough, defendant Mange Ram in his evidence denied that he had ever plaintiff. He stands falsified from the copies Exs. PX and PY of the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1985. Evidence of defendant’s witness Ishwar has been rightly discarded by the learned trial court for the reason that he was not able to tell correctly the boundaries of the house in dispute. He (Ishwar), aged 55 years, was not able to tell the origin of ownership of the house in dispute. Though the plaintiff has not stepped into the witness box, but his special attorney ria have fully supported his cause and claim. They all have given history of the house in dispute and there are no reasons to disbelieve or discard their evidence. Another factor which goes in favour of the plaintiff Ram Chander is that defendant Mange has the proprietors of village Kalawati. It is further an admitted fact that and e Kalawati. of village Kalawati. It is a case of common knowledge that only the proprietors of a village do . It is understandable that revenue record to prove the It would be - ander (YOH THEEK HAI KE RAM CHANDER KAY PASS ES MAKAN KAY ELEVA GAON MEIN OR KOI MAKAN NA Defendant Mange Ram in his evidence stated that his father had d then constructed the house in dispute thereon. This evidence of the defendant is beyond pleadings. Nowhere in his written statement he has so averred. It is also an admitted fact that defendant Mange Ram has no agricultural land in s manifest from the copy Ex.PX and Ex.PY of the judgment and decree, respectively, dated 19.11.1985 that this very Mange Ram had filed a suit for permanent injunction against this very plaintiff junction from taking forcible possession of the house in dispute in his possession. Strangely enough, defendant Mange Ram in his evidence denied that he had ever plaintiff. He stands falsified from the copies Exs. PX and PY of the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1985. Evidence of defendant’s witness Ishwar has been rightly discarded by the e boundaries of the house in dispute. He (Ishwar), aged 55 years, was not able to tell the origin of ownership of the house in dispute. Though the plaintiff has not stepped into the witness box, but his special attorney ria have fully supported his cause and claim. They all have given history of the house in dispute and there are no reasons to disbelieve or discard their evidence. Another factor which goes in favour of the plaintiff Ram Chander is that defendant Mange has JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 603 of 1990 not been able to prove his plea of adverse possession over the house in dispute. been averred in the written statement, nor duly proved specified in his written statement and i and against whom his adverse possession had begun. The question of burden of proving at the end of the case where both the parties had adduced their evidence is not of very great importance and the court is to come to a co the parties in this case, as discussed above, leads to this irresistible conclusion that the plaintiff Ram Chander is the owner of the house in dispute and defendant Mange Ram is in authorized poss same. It appears from the evidence and conduct of the parties that initially plaintiff’s father had simply permitted defendant’s father to use the house in dispute and later on defendant started claiming the same as his own. It is further man plaintiff’s father had left village Kalawati and settled in some other village. 10. defendant Mange that writings Exs. P1 to P3 required Contents of Exs. P1 to P3 do not suggest that the house in dispute was leased out for a period beyond one year or that yearly rent was reserved. These documents do not purport to have been executed by the lesser and the lessee both. But, at t evidence on record does not prove these documents as genuine. A bare perusal of these writings on one bahi leaf shows that they are with one and the same ink and pen. That was the reason that Balak Ram PW stated to have scribed these writings admitted that these writings were made on one and the same day. Further he stated that he was not in the know of owner of the house, though owner of the house has been stated in these writings. Name of the scribe nor signed by him. Date given in Ex.P have come in existence in the year 1954 and Ex.P2 in the year 1958. These writings Exs. P1 to P3 were thumb marked by Mange Ram, as alleged by the plaintiff. It would be pertinent to mention here that defendant Mange in his statement made on 23.7.1987 stated that his father Neki had died RSA No. 603 of 1990 Page N: 5 of 7 Pages not been able to prove his plea of adverse possession over the house in dispute. All the ingredients of the plea of adverse possession have neither been averred in the written statement, nor duly proved specified in his written statement and in his evidence as to on what date and against whom his adverse possession had begun. The question of burden of proving at the end of the case where both the parties had adduced their evidence is not of very great importance and the court is to come to a conclusion on consideration of material. Evidence adduced by the parties in this case, as discussed above, leads to this irresistible conclusion that the plaintiff Ram Chander is the owner of the house in dispute and defendant Mange Ram is in authorized poss same. It appears from the evidence and conduct of the parties that initially plaintiff’s father had simply permitted defendant’s father to use the house in dispute and later on defendant started claiming the same as his own. It is further manifest from the material on record that it happened so when plaintiff’s father had left village Kalawati and settled in some other village. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant defendant Mange that writings Exs. P1 to P3 required Contents of Exs. P1 to P3 do not suggest that the house in dispute was leased out for a period beyond one year or that yearly rent was reserved. These documents do not purport to have been executed by the lesser and the lessee both. But, at the same time, I feel no hesitation in holding that evidence on record does not prove these documents as genuine. A bare perusal of these writings on one bahi leaf shows that they are with one and the same ink and pen. That was the reason that Balak Ram PW stated to have scribed these writings admitted that these writings were made on one and the same day. Further he stated that he was not in the know of owner of the house, though owner of the house has been stated in these writings. Name of the scribe is not mentioned in these writings, nor signed by him. Date given in Ex.P-1 is 24.8.1957. Ex.P3 purports to have come in existence in the year 1954 and Ex.P2 in the year 1958. These writings Exs. P1 to P3 were thumb marked by Mange Ram, as alleged by plaintiff. It would be pertinent to mention here that defendant Mange in his statement made on 23.7.1987 stated that his father Neki had died of 7 Pages not been able to prove his plea of adverse possession over the house in All the ingredients of the plea of adverse possession have neither been averred in the written statement, nor duly proved. He has not n his evidence as to on what date and against whom his adverse possession had begun. The question of burden of proving at the end of the case where both the parties had adduced their evidence is not of very great importance and the court is to nclusion on consideration of material. Evidence adduced by the parties in this case, as discussed above, leads to this irresistible conclusion that the plaintiff Ram Chander is the owner of the house in dispute and defendant Mange Ram is in authorized possession of the same. It appears from the evidence and conduct of the parties that initially plaintiff’s father had simply permitted defendant’s father to use the house in dispute and later on defendant started claiming the same as his own. It ifest from the material on record that it happened so when plaintiff’s father had left village Kalawati and settled in some other village. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant- defendant Mange that writings Exs. P1 to P3 required registration. Contents of Exs. P1 to P3 do not suggest that the house in dispute was leased out for a period beyond one year or that yearly rent was reserved. These documents do not purport to have been executed by the lesser and he same time, I feel no hesitation in holding that evidence on record does not prove these documents as genuine. A bare perusal of these writings on one bahi leaf shows that they are with one and the same ink and pen. That was the reason that Balak Ram PW-1 who stated to have scribed these writings admitted that these writings were made on one and the same day. Further he stated that he was not in the know of owner of the house, though owner of the house has been stated is not mentioned in these writings, 1 is 24.8.1957. Ex.P3 purports to have come in existence in the year 1954 and Ex.P2 in the year 1958. These writings Exs. P1 to P3 were thumb marked by Mange Ram, as alleged by plaintiff. It would be pertinent to mention here that defendant Mange in his statement made on 23.7.1987 stated that his father Neki had died not been able to prove his plea of adverse possession over the house in All the ingredients of the plea of adverse possession have neither . He has not n his evidence as to on what date and against whom his adverse possession had begun. The question of burden of proving at the end of the case where both the parties had adduced their evidence is not of very great importance and the court is to nclusion on consideration of material. Evidence adduced by the parties in this case, as discussed above, leads to this irresistible conclusion that the plaintiff Ram Chander is the owner of the house in ession of the same. It appears from the evidence and conduct of the parties that initially plaintiff’s father had simply permitted defendant’s father to use the house in dispute and later on defendant started claiming the same as his own. It ifest from the material on record that it happened so when - registration. Contents of Exs. P1 to P3 do not suggest that the house in dispute was leased out for a period beyond one year or that yearly rent was reserved. These documents do not purport to have been executed by the lesser and he same time, I feel no hesitation in holding that evidence on record does not prove these documents as genuine. A bare perusal of these writings on one bahi leaf shows that they are with one 1 who stated to have scribed these writings admitted that these writings were made on one and the same day. Further he stated that he was not in the know of owner of the house, though owner of the house has been stated is not mentioned in these writings, 1 is 24.8.1957. Ex.P3 purports to have come in existence in the year 1954 and Ex.P2 in the year 1958. These writings Exs. P1 to P3 were thumb marked by Mange Ram, as alleged by plaintiff. It would be pertinent to mention here that defendant Mange in his statement made on 23.7.1987 stated that his father Neki had died JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 603 of 1990 about 25 defendant’s father died about 15 defendant Mange Ram’s father Neki Ram was alive in the year 1954, 1955 and 1957. It is also not disputed that defendant Mange Ram’s father also used to live in the house in dispute. If that was so then proper and appropriate person f father was defendant’s father Neki. Evidence of the Hand Finger Print Expert, Shri J.C. Singla inspires no confidence, for the reason that he had no exact knowledge of the term “Island”, r necessary for comparison of disputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression. Thumb impression on Exs. P1 to P3 are apparently not clear. Copy Ex.PX of the judgment dated 19.11.1985 reveals that this very plaintiff Ram Chande plea that the house in dispute was given to Mange Ram on rent at the rate of Rs.10/ monthly rent given in Ex.P1 is Rs.2/ reasons, I hold that the writing Exs. P1 to P3 are neither genuine, nor helped the plaintiff.” 9. clearly establish that the suit property lies within the village. It has been determined that the plaintiff, Ram Chander, and his predecessors were proprietors of village Kalawati, where the property is located, while the defendant, Mange Ram, and his father, Neki Ram had migrated from village B Appellate Court rightly noted the general understanding that only village proprietors maintain residences near the 10. in revenue records, formal p the defendant’s own admission weakens his claim, as he acknowledged that apart from the disputed house, the plaintiff owned no other property in the village The defendant’s statement that his father occupied the open site 60 RSA No. 603 of 1990 Page N: 6 of 7 Pages about 25-30 years ago. Plaintiff’s special attorney Gomand stated that defendant’s father died about 15-20 years a defendant Mange Ram’s father Neki Ram was alive in the year 1954, 1955 and 1957. It is also not disputed that defendant Mange Ram’s father also used to live in the house in dispute. If that was so then proper and appropriate person for taking the house in dispute on rent from plaintiff’s father was defendant’s father Neki. Evidence of the Hand Finger Print Expert, Shri J.C. Singla inspires no confidence, for the reason that he had no exact knowledge of the term “Island”, r necessary for comparison of disputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression. Thumb impression on Exs. P1 to P3 are apparently not clear. Copy Ex.PX of the judgment dated 19.11.1985 reveals that this very plaintiff Ram Chander, who was defendant in the previous suit, had taken plea that the house in dispute was given to Mange Ram on rent at the rate of Rs.10/- per month, on monthly basis. It may be recalled that the rate of monthly rent given in Ex.P1 is Rs.2/- and rupee 1/ reasons, I hold that the writing Exs. P1 to P3 are neither genuine, nor helped the plaintiff.” The above findings, based on proper appreciation of evidence, clearly establish that the suit property lies within the village. It has been determined that the plaintiff, Ram Chander, and his predecessors were proprietors of village Kalawati, where the property is located, while the defendant, Mange Ram, and his father, Neki Ram had migrated from village Bidhan—were non Appellate Court rightly noted the general understanding that only village proprietors maintain residences near the Lal Dora Since properties within the Lal Dora in revenue records, formal proof of title is generally unavailable. Moreover, the defendant’s own admission weakens his claim, as he acknowledged that apart from the disputed house, the plaintiff owned no other property in the village—indicating the suit property indeed belonged to t The defendant’s statement that his father occupied the open site 60 of 7 Pages 30 years ago. Plaintiff’s special attorney Gomand stated that 20 years ago, becomes clear that defendant Mange Ram’s father Neki Ram was alive in the year 1954, 1955 and 1957. It is also not disputed that defendant Mange Ram’s father also used to live in the house in dispute. If that was so then proper and or taking the house in dispute on rent from plaintiff’s father was defendant’s father Neki. Evidence of the Hand-writing and Finger Print Expert, Shri J.C. Singla inspires no confidence, for the reason that he had no exact knowledge of the term “Island”, reading of which is necessary for comparison of disputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression. Thumb impression on Exs. P1 to P3 are apparently not clear. Copy Ex.PX of the judgment dated 19.11.1985 reveals that this very r, who was defendant in the previous suit, had taken plea that the house in dispute was given to Mange Ram on rent at the rate per month, on monthly basis. It may be recalled that the rate of and rupee 1/- in Ex.P3. For these reasons, I hold that the writing Exs. P1 to P3 are neither genuine, nor The above findings, based on proper appreciation of evidence, clearly establish that the suit property lies within the Lal Dora area of the village. It has been determined that the plaintiff, Ram Chander, and his predecessors were proprietors of village Kalawati, where the property is located, while the defendant, Mange Ram, and his father, Neki Ram—who were non-proprietors. The First Appellate Court rightly noted the general understanding that only village Lal Dora. Lal Dora are often undocumented roof of title is generally unavailable. Moreover, the defendant’s own admission weakens his claim, as he acknowledged that apart from the disputed house, the plaintiff owned no other property indicating the suit property indeed belonged to the plaintiff. The defendant’s statement that his father occupied the open site 60–70 30 years ago. Plaintiff’s special attorney Gomand stated that go, becomes clear that defendant Mange Ram’s father Neki Ram was alive in the year 1954, 1955 and 1957. It is also not disputed that defendant Mange Ram’s father also used to live in the house in dispute. If that was so then proper and or taking the house in dispute on rent from plaintiff’s writing and Finger Print Expert, Shri J.C. Singla inspires no confidence, for the reason eading of which is necessary for comparison of disputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression. Thumb impression on Exs. P1 to P3 are apparently not clear. Copy Ex.PX of the judgment dated 19.11.1985 reveals that this very r, who was defendant in the previous suit, had taken plea that the house in dispute was given to Mange Ram on rent at the rate per month, on monthly basis. It may be recalled that the rate of n Ex.P3. For these reasons, I hold that the writing Exs. P1 to P3 are neither genuine, nor The above findings, based on proper appreciation of evidence, area of the village. It has been determined that the plaintiff, Ram Chander, and his predecessors were proprietors of village Kalawati, where the property is who proprietors. The First Appellate Court rightly noted the general understanding that only village are often undocumented roof of title is generally unavailable. Moreover, the defendant’s own admission weakens his claim, as he acknowledged that apart from the disputed house, the plaintiff owned no other property he plaintiff. 70 JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 603 of 1990 years ago and constructed the house was discredited, as it went beyond the scope of his written statement. 11. land in village Kalawati. Additionally, he had previously filed a suit for pe manent injunction against the plaintiff and others, as shown in judgment and decree Ex.PX and Ex.PY further undermining his credibility. 12. plaintiff did not personally testify, his attorney adequately proved the e sential facts to establish his ownership. No question was raised by the a pellant's counsel that could not have been torney or that required the personal testimony of the plaintiff. 13. find any ground findings of facts as record upon proper appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any illegality or perversity in the findings, the present appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and as such 14.05.2025 Jiten RSA No. 603 of 1990 Page N: 7 of 7 Pages years ago and constructed the house was discredited, as it went beyond the scope of his written statement. It was also revealed that the defendant held no agricultura land in village Kalawati. Additionally, he had previously filed a suit for pe manent injunction against the plaintiff and others, as shown in judgment and decree Ex.PX and Ex.PY—despite denying this during testimony further undermining his credibility. The First Appellate Court correctly held that, although the plaintiff did not personally testify, his attorney adequately proved the e sential facts to establish his ownership. No question was raised by the a pellant's counsel that could not have been torney or that required the personal testimony of the plaintiff. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not ground whatsoever to disturb the findings of facts as recorded by Courts below upon proper appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any illegality or perversity in the findings, the present appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable of 7 Pages years ago and constructed the house was discredited, as it went beyond the It was also revealed that the defendant held no agricultural land in village Kalawati. Additionally, he had previously filed a suit for per- manent injunction against the plaintiff and others, as shown in judgment despite denying this during testimony— The First Appellate Court correctly held that, although the plaintiff did not personally testify, his attorney adequately proved the es- sential facts to establish his ownership. No question was raised by the ap- pellant's counsel that could not have been effectively answered by the at- torney or that required the personal testimony of the plaintiff. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not whatsoever to disturb the well-reasoned concurrent ed by Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any illegality or perversity in the findings, the present appeal is held to be devoid of any the same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No years ago and constructed the house was discredited, as it went beyond the l r- manent injunction against the plaintiff and others, as shown in judgment — The First Appellate Court correctly held that, although the s- p- t- In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not concurrent which are found to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any illegality or perversity in the findings, the present appeal is held to be devoid of any JITEN SHARMA 2025.05.15 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document