Whereas the suits of the respondents were dismissed by the learned trial Judge, the Suit of the appellants was decreed.
We would like to set out here the findings of fact arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court PW1.
28T/98/8.10.91 was filed by the appellants herein.
Both of them have also admitted that electric wires also pass through the disputed land.
283 T93/12.9.91 was filed by the respondents herein.
PW.2 has also stated that an electric pole is there in the site in dispute.
If that is so, then it can be said that the plaintiff have withheld the best evidence available with them regarding the ownership of the disputed site and adverse inference must be drawn against them.
PW2 has gone to the extent to state that the site shown in site plans Exs.
P1 and P2 was shamlat deh.
The parties preferred respective appeals from the said judgments and decree.
P1 and P2 was shamlat deh.
decided by this Court, appeal has been accepted and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have been set aside and suit of the plaintiffs defendants in the present case have been decreed and the defendants plaintiffs in the present case have been directed to remove the encroachment made by them in the site in suit.
And they have shown it to be so in their site plan.
The dispute between the parties arise in respect of a land situated at village Nardu, Teshil Rajpura butted and bounded as follows North House and companypound of Avtar Singh and Jatinder defendants.
As per the admission of PW2, the site shown in site plans Exs.
Whereas the respondents filed a Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, the appellants herein filed a Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defedants from interfering or dis possessing them from the suit land, the description whereof was given and whereafter a site plan was filed.
Case of the defendants is also that part of the site purchased by the plaintiffs was shamlat deh.
Harchand Singh and PW2 Rajinder Singh have admitted in their cross examination that a door, two windows and on parnala of the house of Gurdial Singh defendant open towards the site in dispute.
PW4 Jatinder Singh who has appeared as special attorney of number2 has stated in his cross examination that Gurdev Singh was having document of title with him.
If that is so them it can be said that side companyld number be sold by a private person.
Remaining portion of the site purchased by the plaintiffs was a passage companymon chowk.
Although in the Suit filed by the respondents herein the Appellate Court posed a wrong question as regard onus of proof but keeping in view the fact that in the Suit filed by the appellants an admission was made by him that the land in question was a Shamlat deh, we are of the opinion that it is number a fit case and for the reasons stated hereinafter, whether we should interfere with the impugned judgments.
Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Both these appeals involving companymon questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
