ATMA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R.S.ROOP RAM Vs. LACHMI
LAWS(HPH)-1997-6-31
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on June 11,1997

ATMA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.R.S.ROOP RAM Appellant
VERSUS
LACHMI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MOTI V. AJUDH RAJ AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AJUDH RAJ VS. MOTI S O MUSSADI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SAIRU RAM VS. PREM CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-2004-4-19] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.L.KHURANA,J. - (1.)This regular second appeal by the defendant has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 30 -7 -1988 of the learned District Judge, Nahan, reversing the judgment and decree dated 13 -5 -1987 of the learned Sub -Judge 1st Class, Paonta Sahib.
(2.)The subject matter of dispute between the parties is the land measuring 31 bighas 11 biswas comprising of Khasra Nos. 442 and 829 of village Bhagani, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, specifically described in the plaint and jamabandi for the year 1979 -80 and hereinafter referred to as the Sand in dispute.
(3.)Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these. The land in dispute was previously under the tenancy of Bhima, the father of the parties. After his death, the parties succeeded to such tenancy rights in equal shares. The defendant, being the elder brother of the plaintiff was acting as Karta of the joint family and managing the land in dispute as well as other household affairs. The plaintiff was assigned the job of working as a labourer in order to augment the income of the family. The defendant being a clever person by playing fraud and by suppressing the true facts obtained proprietary rights qua the land in dispute to the exclusion of the plaintiff. Consequently, the revenue entries came to be changed in favour of defendant showing him to be the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. The plaintiff, who was working in Uttar Pradesh, came to know about the acquisition of proprietary rights by the defendant and the revenue entries only on his return in September 1984 when he was not permitted to enter the land and the family house. The plaintiff, accordingly, filed a suit for declaration of his title and joint possession of the land in dispute to the extent of 1/2 share.


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