SHAM LAL Vs. RATTAN SINGH
LAWS(HPH)-1991-4-9
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on April 04,1991

SHAM LAL Appellant
VERSUS
RATTAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

DEVINDER GUPTA,J. - (1.) This is defendants appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as it stood prior to the amendment of the Act in 1976, against the judgment and decree passed on November 14, 1979, by District Judge, Hamirpur and Una Districts at Una, dismissing their appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on September 13, 1979 by Senior Sub -Judge, Una, decreeing the suit of plaintiff -respondent.
(2.) The controversy between the parties is with respect to the ownership and possession of 1 kanal 15 marlas of land being kila Nos. 26 and 27 of rectangle No 1 as entered at Khewat No. 266, Khatauni No. 615 of Jamabandi for the year 1971 -72 situate in village Kaloh in Tehsil Amb, District Una.
(3.) Plaintiff Rattan Singh filed a suit for grant of decree for declaration to the effect that he alongwith others is the owner and in possession of the suit property. The defendants who had no interest in the property, had started interference with his ownership and cultivation on the basis of wrong entries got incorporated by them in the revenue records in connivance with the revenue staff since Kharif 1975 and since then had started interference with his possession A decree for prohibitory injunction was claimed against defendants as a consequential relief. In the alternative a decree for possession of the suit land was claimed, in case the plaintiff was held to have been dispossessed by the defendants The defendants contested the suit and stated that they were in possession of the property for the last mere than forty years and that they have their only residential houses and cow -shed thereon. According to them they were paying tax to the Panchayat in respect of these residential houses. The defendants in the written statement alleged that the property was Abadi, but taking undue advantage of the wrong entries, the plaintiff, who was only one out of 17/18 co -owners, had mala fide intent to harass and blackmail them. Challenge was also made by them to the maintainability of the suit. The replication contained nothing but bare denial of the assertions made in the written statement, without specifically denying the fact that the defendants had their residential houses over the suit land for the last more than forty years or that the nature of the land was Abadi.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.