deciding issues No.1 and 3 observed that plaintiff and his witnesses Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.3 have deposed evidence that plaintiff since time of his predecessor namely Chhidi Lal was in actual and physical possession over the suit property. Plaintiff produced document Ex.5 to show that Gram Panchayat, Chekora granted the permission to raise construction to plaintiff's predecessor Chhidi Lal on 17.10.1965 (Ex.4). It was observed by the trial Court that at that point of time one neighbour namely Nekiram raised some objection, however, after settlement between both parties, (Ex.5) the Gram Panchayat accorded permission to plaintiff's predecessor for raising construction. It was also observed that on the permission Ex.4, Mr. Angad Singh has put his signature. Defendant is claiming his possession over the suit plot through Angad Singh. The trial Court observed that defendant has not produced any evidence in rebuttal to plaintiff's evidence to show his old and established possession. Statements of Dw.1, Dw.2, Dw.3, Dw.4 and Dw.5 were considered and on the basis of having previous possession over the suit plot of predecessors of plaintiff, the suit was decreed against defendant. It may be noticed here that defendant has not taken any plea of having adverse possession over the suit plot for more than 12 years. Thus, on comparative examination of respective evidence of both parties, the trial Court finally decreed plaintiff's suit vide judgment dated 19.1.2007.
