JAWALI HARIJAN CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY Vs. CHET RAM
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
JAWALI HARIJAN CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY
Click here to view full judgement.
Devinder Gupta, J. -
(1.) This judgment will dispose of five regular second appeals filed by the defendant-appellant Society against the judgment and decree passed on March 23, 1981 by the District Judge, Mandi, Kulluand Lahaul Spiti Districts at Kullu dismissing its appeals and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on May 31, 1980 by Sub-Judge 1st Class, Kullu decreeing the respective civil suits of plaintiff-respondents.
(2.) Plaintiff-respondent in each of the appeals filed a separate suit against defendant-appellant for grant of a decree for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the land, particulars of which were given in the heading and in para 2 of each of the plaint, the District Welfare Officer, Kullu, got a deed of sale executed in respect of the suit land in favour of the appellant Society which was a fictitious and bogus Society and as per the condition in the deed of sale, part of the sale consideration was to be paid subsequently which was not paid, therefore, the transaction of sale due to non-payment of the balance sale consideration was null and void. Despite execution of this deed of sale, plaintiff was in possession of the suit property openly, peacefully, continuously in assertion of his right as an owner considering the deed of sale to be void and the right, title and interest, if any, of the appellant Society had, by lapse of time, come to an end and he has otherwise become its owner by way of adverse possession. By wa y of consequential relief, decree for injunction was prayed by the plaintiff against the appellant Society.
(3.) The suits were contested by the Society on various legal grounds as well as on merits. One of the legal objection which was taken in each case was that the suit was bad for want of notice. The trial Court proceeded to determine all the legal and factual issues and, ultimately, decreed the suits. On the objection which had been raised by the Society that the suit was not competent and maintainable for want of notice, the trial Court held that as the onus of the issue was on the defendant-Society and it did not lead any evidence, therefore, the same was decided against the Society.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.