HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST APEAL NO. 51 OF 2003 Anand Prasad ….Plaintiff -Appellant Vs. Chief Medical Officer & another ….Defendants-Respondents 20.6.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri V.K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate assisted by Smt. Seema Sirohi, counsel for the appellant and Shri R.C. Arya, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By the present first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Uttarkashi in Civil Suit No. 41 of 1999. 3. Briefly stated, a suit was filed by the plaintiff being suit no. 41 of 1999 praying for a decree for possession of the property which has been occupied by the defendant no. 1 to the extent of 0.016 Hectare. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff is the owner and bhumidhar of the land khasra no. 2159 area 0.023 Hect situate at village Barahat, Patti Varahat, Tehsil Bhatwari, District Uttarkashi. The name of the plaintiff along with his aunt is recorded in the revenue records with regard to the aforesaid land. It has been stated that the joint- khatadar of the property Smt. Ahilya W/o Ramchandra has 2 expired issueless 6 months ago and he is the only heir of the aforesaid property. In paragraph no. 3 of the plaint, it has been stated as under:- “3- ;g fd fookfnr [kljk ua- 2159 jdck 0-023 gS0 Hkwfe e/;s 0-006 gS0 Hkwfe ij fo’oukFk pkSd ls HkVokjh jksM dks tkus okyk vke jkLrk iM+rk gS rFkk 'ks"k Hkwfe 0-016 gS0 ij vkt ls djhc 10&11 lky iwoZ izfroknh la0 1 us uktk;t :Ik ls xSj dkuwuh dCtk dj j[kk gS ftlesa ls jdck 0-007 gS0 Hkwfe ij izfroknh la0 1 }kjk viuk vkoklh; Hkou fufeZr dj fn;k gS rFkk 'ks"k Hkwfe 0- 01 gS0 vHkh rd [kkyh gS vkSj [kkyh Hkwfe dks izfroknh la0 1 }kjk pkjnhokjh yxkdj ?ksj ckj djrs gq, vfrdzfer fd;k gqvk gS A fookfnr Hkwfe dh pkSgn~nh esa mRrj esa [kljk ua0 2161 nf{k.k esa fo’oukFk pkSd ls HkVokM+h jksM dks tkus okyk jkLrk iwoZ esa [kljk ua0 2107 rFkk nf{k.k esa [kljk ua0 2658 fLFkr gSa AÞ 4. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 have filed their written statement stating therein that the property in dispute is in possession of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 for the last 20 years. The land khasra no. 2159 is abadi land. Suit is barred by time. It has also been stated that on the land in dispute, there are residential houses and the defendants are in possession of the disputed property for the last 20 years. The Nagar Palika has not been impleaded as party. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court has framed the following issues:- “1.D;k oknh Hkw&Hkkx dk ekfyd Hkwfe/kj gS\ 2- D;k okn le; vUnj is’k gS\ 3- D;k izfroknh la[;k 1 dCtk eq[kkyQkuk ls ekfyd Hkwfe/kj gks x;k gS \ 4- D;k nkoh Hkw&Hkkx ij lSQ~Vh Vsad cuk gS o ,D;wfyfIVl o Qynkj isM+ yxs gSa] ;fn gkWa rks bldk vlj\ 5- D;k okn fcuk uxj ikfydk la;kstu ds pyus ;ksX; gS\ 3 6- D;k okn fcuk lh-ih-lh- 80 ds dk;Zokgh ds iks"k.kh; ugha gS\ 7- D;k oknh fdlh vuqrks"k dks ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\” 6. The plaintiff has produced paper nos. 5 ga, 7 ga, 7 ga/7 a, 9ga, 12 ga, 30 ga, 31 ga, 40 ga to 42 ga and 52 ga towards documentary evidence. 7. While deciding issue no. 1 as to whether the plaintiff is owner of the disputed property, the trial court has recorded the finding that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property. The trial court has relied upon the statement of D.W.1 who has stated that the name of the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue record. The trial court has recorded the finding to the following effect:- “oknh e`rd jkepUnz dk Hkrhtk ¼HkkbZ dk yM+dk Fkk ½ tks xksn fy;k tk ldrk Fkk] xksn ysus dk dkuwu lu~ 1956 esa cuk] mlesa Hkh xksn ysus ij jftLVªh djuk vko’;d ugha Fkk A ;fn dksbZ jftLVªh djrk vkSj mls U;k;ky; esa is’k djrk rks og xksn ysus dk izek.k ekuk tkrk Mh-MCY;w- 2 ds ftjg c;ku ds iSjk la0 5 ds vuqlkj lu~ 1958 esa lqHkkxk tks cM+h lkor Fkh] mlus oknh ds uke uke jftLVªh dh] gykWafd mlesa vfgY;k nsoh dh Hkh jtkcUnh Fkh] ysfdu lqHkkxk ds ejus ij oknh ,oa vfgY;k nsoh ds uke jktLo foHkkx us nk-[kk- pyk;k ftlesa [kkrk dh udy dkxt la[;k 12x gS ;g jktLo deZpkfj;ksa dh le> dh ckr Fkh] ysfdu oknh dks Hkh dksbZ ,srjkt ugha Fkk vkSj nk-[kk- ntZ gksus ls gd gdwdksa ij dksbZ ;k LokfeRo ij dqizHkko ugha iM+rk A vfgY;k nsoh ds ejus ij vdsyk oknh gh ekfyd Hkwfe/kj gqvk vkSj mlds uke nk-[kk- Hkh Lohd`r gqvk] udy [krkSuh dkxt la0 31 x gS vkSj oknh gh ,d ek= ekfyd o dkfct jkepUnz rFkk mldh fo/kokvksa dh NksM+h gqbZ lEifRr oknh dh gh dCts esa gS tks oknh ds okn Ik= o oknh o oknh ds xokgku ds 'kiFk Ik= o ftjg c;kuksa es 4 c[kwch lkfcr gS ftldks izfroknh la0 1 dh rjQ ls vius tckcnkok ;k 'kiFki= esa dgha pqukSrh ugha nh xbZ] u gha dgh Li"V rkSj ij fdlh izdkj ls bUdkj gh fd;k x;k A ,slk u djus ij izfroknh la- 1 dh rjQ ls vkns’k 8 fu;e 5 tk-nh- ds vuqlkj ;g Lohd`fr ekuh tk;sxh tSlk fd okn Ik= ds iSjk la[;k 01 ds tokc esa izfroknh la[;k 01 dk tokcnkok dk iSjk la- 01 gS] Li"V dksbZ tokc ugha dkxtkr eky esa bUnzkth dcwy gS] 'ks"k bckjr dcwy ugha D;kasfd u gh izfroknh la[; 1 ds ikl blds fo:) dgus dks D;k gS] Li"V ugha fd;k x;k A izfroknh uEcj 1 us oknh ds LokfeRo dks dksbZ pqukSrh ugha nh] u gh viuk fdlh izdkj fof/kor lkfcr fd;k] bl izdkj oknh nkoh Hkwfe dk ekfyd Hkwfe/kj gS AÞ 8. However, at the same time, the trial court has recorded a contrary finding to the following effect:- “15- mDr foospuk ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd oknh ;g LFkkfir djus eas vlQy jgk gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe dk og jkepUnz dk xksniq= gksus ds ukrs Lokeh gS A okn fcUnq rn~uqlkj udkjkRed :Ik ls oknh ds fo:) vkSj izfroknh ds Ik{k esa fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gS A” 9. While deciding issue no. 2 with regard to limitation and issue no. 3 with regard to ownership of the defendants by way of adverse possession, the trial court has recorded the finding after that the suit is barred by time and the defendants have attained the ownership of the property in dispute by way of adverse possession. The trial court has recorded the finding to the following effect:- “oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ;g rdZ fn;k x;k fd dkxt la[;k 57&x@3 esa izfroknhx.k ds voj vfHk;Urk ';ke ukjk;.k us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd [ksr uEcj 2159 fdlds fgLls dk gS\ mls irk ugha gS fdUrq Hkou fuekZ.k gksus ij vfgY;k nsoh us vkifRr dh Fkh] rRlEcU/kh lh-,e-vks- ,oa vfgY;k nsoh ds chp bl ckcr~ okrkZ 5 gksus ds ckn dk;Z iwjk gqvk Fkk A bl c;ku ij oknh }kjk fo’okl fd;k x;k gS] bl c;ku ls iwoZ bl xokg us ;g dgk Fkk fd Hkou fuekZ.k 1981&82 esa gqvk Fkk A vr% djhc 1981&82 ls iz’uxr HkwHkkx ij izfroknhx.k dk dCtk gksuk oknh us Lohdkj fd;k gS] eqdnek 1998 esa igyh ckj nkf[ky fd;k x;k] 12 lky ls vf/kd dh vof/k izLrqr lkf{k;ksa ds c;ku ls lkfcr gks tkrh gS A” 10. While deciding issue no. 4 with regard to existence of safety tank and trees on the property in dispute, the trial has taken into consideration the statement of P.W.1 who has stated in his cross-examination that there are trees existing on the property in dispute. However, this witness has placed ignorance that there is any safety tank on the disputed property. The trial court has further taken into consideration the statement of other witnesses and has come to the conclusion that there are safety tank and trees existing on the property in dispute. The trial court has recorded the finding to the following effect:- “fdlh Hkh Hkou esa fuokl djus ds fy, 'kkSpky; dk gksuk vko’;d gS] 'kkSpky; ds lkFk gh lsQ~Vh VSad o 'kkSd fiV mlds vfHkUu vax gksrs gSa A fcuk 'kkSpky; ds vkoklh; Hkou dk bLrseky ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj 'kkSpky; ds fy, lsQ~Vh VSad o 'kkSd fiV vko’;d gksrs gSa A bl nLrkost lk{; dks Lo;a oknh }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd Hkou 1981&82 dk cuk gqvk gS vkSj Hkou ds fo"k; esa dksbZ vuqrks"k oknh }kjk ugha ekaxk x;k gS A ih-MCY;w- 1 us ;g dgk gS fd mls /;ku ugha gS fd uEcj 2159 ij LokLF; foHkkx dk vkoklh; Hkou dc cuk\ ih0MCY;w0 1 oknh us viuh izfr ijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd efUnj tkus ds fy, lM+d gS] mls bl ckr dh tkudkjh ugha gS [kljk uEcj 2159 ij dksbZ lsQ~Vh VSad cuk gS ;k ugha\ bl xokg us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd bl ifjlj esa ;wdsfyIVl o uhacw ds isM+ gSa ysfdu mldh pkph dk dguk Fkk fd eSaus yxk j[ks Fks A ;g rF; oknh ds Kku esa Fkk rks mls ;wdsfyIVl 6 o uhacw ds isM+ yxkus dh ckr vius okn i= esa ysdj vkuh pkfg, Fkh ysfdu oknh us ,slk ugha fd;k gS A ih0MCY;w0 3 fpjath izlkn tks’kh us viuh izfr ijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd isM+ vanktu 15&20 lky mez ds gksaxs A ;g rF; izfroknh la[;k 1 dh ckr dks lkfcr djrk gS fd bl ij LokLF; foHkkx ds isM+ gSa A oknh ds dFkukuqlkj mldh pkph us isM+ yxk, Fks] tc ;g rF; mlds okn Ik= esa vkuk pkfg, Fkk A izfroknh la[;k 1 dh vksj ls Mk0 Mh0lh0 feJk dk 'kiFk Ik= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A bl xokg us dgk gS fd fookfnr lEifRr ij vkoklh; Hkou esa lsQ~Vh VSad o 'kkSd fiV cus gq, gSa rFkk uhacw o ;wdsfyIVl ds isM+ fLFkr gSa A mDr fuekZ.k 1982 esa fufeZr gks x;s Fks] rc ls izfroknh la[;k 1 bl ij csjksd Vksd dkfct pyk vk jgk gS A bl xokg us dgk gS fd mlds lkeus dksbZ losZ ugha gqvk Fkk dksbZ ekSdk eqvk;uk ugha gqvk Fkk] vkoklh; Hkouksa ds 20 lky igys ls cuk gksuk vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij dgk tk jgk gS A mDr vfHkys[kh; lk{; ls izfroknh dh ckr lkfcr gksrh gS A mDr foospuk ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij izfroknh la[;k 1 dk lsQ~Vh VSad o 'kkSd fiV 1982 ls cus gq, gSa] ml ij isM+ yxs gq, gSa vkSj blls izfroknh la[;k &1 dk izfrdwy dCtk LFkkfir gksrk gS A” 11. While deciding issue no. 5 as to whether the suit is not maintainable without impleading Nagar Palika as party, the trial court has come to the conclusion that there was no necessity of impleading the Nagar Palika as party because the relief has been claimed by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 who are in possession of the property in dispute. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid, the trial court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 7 13. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court below did not consider the fact that the name of the plaintiff is recorded in the revenue records with regard to property in dispute inasmuch as the defendants were never the owners of the land and they have never claimed the ownership right over the property in dispute. It has further been submitted that the trial court has not considered that the aforesaid property has been inherited by the plaintiff by his aunt, namely, Ahilya Devi who has objected in writing the illegal possession of the land by the defendants on 9.10.1986 . 14. In view of the aforesaid, I deem it proper to remand the case before the court below for recording the findings afresh with regard to the fact that that as to whether Smt. Ahilya Devi has made objection of illegal possession of the land by letters dated 9.10.1986 and, therefore, no case for adverse possession is made out and further the defendants having not completed more than 12 years of peaceful possession on the property in dispute and further the court below shall record the findings that the property has been inherited by the plaintiff after the death of her aunt Smt. Ahilya Devi. The trial court is directed to decide the matter accordingly. 15. Consequently, first appeal is allowed and is remanded to the court below for deciding afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 20.6.2008 Avneet