SIRI RAM Vs. PAWNA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No.48-S/13 of 2007 whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasauli, District Solan, in Civil Suit No.712/1 of 1999/96, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.30/3, 30/1, measuring 3-2 bighas, situated in Mauja Thana, Pargana Garshyang, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. It was averred that in the year 1973, mutation No.100 was attested by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade with regard to oral sale of 6 biswas of land in favour of the respondent/defendant, now deceased, (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). By another mutation No.115 dated 26.09.1980 the land measuring 5 biswas denoted by Khasra No.62/1 was shown to have been exchanged with the land measuring Khasra No.63/2 of the defendant, who had also been shown in possession of land Khasra No.122/62, 124/63 measuring 10 biswas. Aggrieved by sanction of these mutations, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that the oral sale deed dated 21.09.1973 was illegal, inoperative and not binding on his right, title or interest and mutation No.100 of the same date was illegal and not tenable. Further, the exchange alleged to have been taken place by mutation No.115 dated 26.09.1980 was also not legal and binding.

(3.) The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit on account of bar under Section 57 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 was raised. It was also alleged that the plaintiff was estopped by his acts, conduct, deeds and acquiescences etc. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation as the mutations with regard to oral sale and exchange had been attested in the years 1973 and 1980, respectively, whereas, the suit had come to be instituted only in the year 1996. It was also denied that the mutation was not binding upon the plaintiff.