SMT. MADHU BALA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming therein a decree of declaration and of permanent prohibitory injunction being pronounced in respect to the suit land vis-a-vis the defendants. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of relief(s) claimed therein. The defendant being aggrieved therefrom, instituted an Appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court partly allowed the Appeal, to the extent that the declaratory decree qua the plaintiffs acquiring prescriptive title to the suit land, by elapse of the statutorily mandatory period of limitation, warranting its being quashed and set aside, however, relief of injunction was affirmed. Being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiffs instituted the instant Appeal before this Court, wherein, reversal of the verdict pronounced by the learned First Appellate Court, is strived.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land along with a building comprising in Kh. No. 997 and 998 which appear to have been carved out of old Kh. No. 326, measuring 67.45 sq. meters, situate in revenue village Sarahan Kalan, Tehsil Pachad, District Sirmaur, H.P. It is averred that earlier Kh. No. 326 measuring 19 biswas was recorded in the ownership of his highness Sirmaur. It was in possession of Mahkama District Board as per copy of Misal Hakiyat, 1987-88 Samvat. Thereafter, by an Oral sale, Rulia Ram purchased the suit property. He having died was succeeded by his legal representatives Bagwati and Parvati, being daughters. During his life time, Ruila Ram partitioned his purchased suit property in two parcels. Thereafter, Parwati gifted the suit property in favour of Devinder Parkash on 20.05.1957. Devinder Parkash having died, the plaintiffs are his successor-in-interest being widow and minor son respectively. Plaintiffs' further case is that on 14.8.1978, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs denied the title of the defendant and declared that they are owners in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs thus claim their title on the basis of gift and in the alternative by adverse possession. The plaintiffs also averred that the encroachment proceedings passed by Settlement Officer, Shimla against them are illegal. The revenue entries in favour of the appellant are wrong and illegal. As such, they preferred the present suit for declaration seeking to impugn the revenue entries as also order of the Settlement Officer, Shimla dated 6.4.2002 and also for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement it has taken preliminary objection inter alia maintainability, jurisdiction, estoppel and want of notice. The sale of the suit property by Rulia Ram as also the gift deed by Parwati in favour of Devinder Parkash, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs are denied in toto. It is also denied that the plaintiffs have become owners either on the basis of title or by way of adverse possession. The defendant's case is that, in fact, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs encroached upon the suit land, therefore, the ejectment proceedings against him were initiated and finalised.