JAWALI HARIJAN CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY Vs. MAGHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of five regular second appeals filed by the defendant-appellant-Society against the judgment and decree passed on 23/03/1981 by the District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahavi Soiti Districts at Kullu dismissing its appeals and there by confirming the judgment and decree passed on 31/05/1980 by Sub -Judge Ist Class, Kullu decreeing the respec-tive civil suits of plaintiff-respondents.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent in each of the appeals filed a separate suit against defen-dant-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, continuous-ly 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 ap-pellant-Society had, by lapse of time, come to an end and he has otherwise become its owner by way of adverse possession. By way 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 objections which was taken in each case was that the suit was bad for want of notice. The trial Court proceeded to deter-mine 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.