AJUDHIA LAL Vs. SANDHYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgement and decree dated 5.12.1994 of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby reversing the decree of declaration with further relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, passed by the trial court in favour of the appellant, the suit of the appellant- plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) FACTS relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Appellant, hereinafter called plaintiff, filed a suit seeking declaration that he and proforma respondents were owners in Whether reporters of local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes possession of land measuring 15 Biswas, bearing khasra No. 237 on the basis of an agreement of exchange having taken place between him and respondent- defendant Babu Ram (deceased). By way of further relief, permanent prohibitory injunction had been sought restraining the respondent- defendants Babu Ram, Niku and Jagdish from causing any interference in his possession or raising any construction on any portion of the said land. It was alleged that initially one Khalelo and Kirpi used to be the owners of Khasra No. 237 and that Kirpi transferred her share in favour of Khalelo and Khalelo became the owner of khasra No. 237. After sometime, Khalelo transferred khasra No. 237 in favour of defendant Babu Ram. When on such transfer, Babu Ram obtained demarcation, it was found that in fact khasra No. 237 was in possession of the plaintiff and proforma defendants, while khasra No. 236, belonging to the plaintiff and proforma defendants had been in possession of Khalelo and on transfer, Babu Ram got possession of said khasra No. 236. When this factual position came to light, an agreement of exchange took place, which was reduced into writing. The said writing is Ex. PW 3/A. However, entries in respect of khasra No. 237 were not got changed in favour of the plaintiff by Babu Ram defendant, inspite of the execution of the aforesaid writing. Plaintiff being an illiterate person remained under the impression that after the execution of the writing, the revenue entries might have been corrected. In the year 1980, defendant Babu Ram, allegedly tried to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over Khasra No. 237 and threatened to construct a house on a portion thereof. It was then that the plaintiff procured the copy of Missal Hakiat and came to know that entries in the revenue papers have not been changed in respect of said land in his favour. So he filed the suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction.

(3.) LEARNED trial court tried the matter and came to the conclusion that though khasra No. 237 had been transferred in favour of Babu Ram defendant by Khalelo, as a matter of fact, Khalelo was not in possession of that khasra number and instead she was in possession of khasra No. 236, belonging to the plaintiff and proforma defendants and so defendant Babu Ram got the possession of khasra No. 236 from Khalelo in place of khasra No. 237. The trial court further concluded that possession of khasra No. 237 had been with the plaintiff and proforma defendants and when on demarcation it was found by both the parties, i.e. plaintiff and proforma defendants on one side and contesting defendant Babu Ram on the other that they were in possession of each other's properties, they made an agreement of exchange, which was reduced into writing in the form of Ex. PW 3/A. But the entries in the revenue papers were not got changed on the basis of that writing. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the learned trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring that he and proforma defendants were in possession of khasra No. 237 and that its ownership stood transferred to them by way of agreement of exchange Ex. PW 3/A, in lieu of their own khasra No. 236.