RULIA Vs. ROOP LAL
LAWS(HPH)-1991-6-12
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on June 26,1991

RULIA Appellant
VERSUS
ROOP LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BHAWANI SIOGH,J. - (1.) This appeal, under Paragraph 32 of the Himachal Pradesh Courts Order, is directed against the decision of District Judge in C. A No 98 -B/13 of 1977, which confirms the judgment of Sub -Judge, Ghumarwin, dated 28 -2 -1976.
(2.) Laturia was the father of Rulia, Nika, Jiwanu, Shiv Dai and Bhadru, defendants before the trial Court, while Paras Ram and Badri (Plaintiffs) and Bakshi Ram (proforma defendant) are the real brothers. They were recorded tenants in possession of the land in dispute comprised in Khasra No 561, measuring 2 -18 bighas, situate in village Kothi, Pargana Tiun, District Bilaspur. Proceedings, under the Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were initiated for assessing compensation with respect to the tenancy land by the Compensation Officer. During these proceedings, Laturia, set -up a mortgage deed and claimed thereby that the land in question had been mortgaged to him with possession by writing of 0 -2 -1912 (corresponding to May 2, 1955), as such, the tenants had lost their right to become owners by virtue of the provisions of the Act. This plea prevailed with the Compensation Officer, before whom a mortgage deed was also produced, and the claim raised by the tenants was thus rejected on 25 -6 -1986. The tenants also failed before the appellate Court, which upheld the findings of the Compensation Officer that on account of the mortgage, the tenants had lost their rights to get the proprietary rights in the suit land.
(3.) Suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as non -occupancy tenants was filed before the Sub -Judge, Ghumarwin, in which relief of permanent injunction against the landlords not to interfere in the tenancy land, has also been sought. Shri Baisakhi Ram has not been joined as plaintiff but as proforma -defendant No. 6, presumably for the reason that the mortgage set -up by the landlords has been executed by him alone and as such, segregated by the plaintiffs.;


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