CHUHA RAM Vs. VAKIL SINGH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-5-22
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on May 22,1997

CHUHA RAM Appellant
VERSUS
VAKIL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ARUN KUMAR GOEL,J - (1.)This is defendants appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by Sh. K.C.Sood, District Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala. By means of impugned judgment in civil Appeal No. 165 of 1986 dated 21 -4 -1989, the appeal filed No.l83of 1987 by the plaintiffs has been allowed and consequently, their suit for possession has been decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree of Sub Judge 1st Class, Nurpur District Kangra, whereby plaintiffs suit was dismissed. Parties in this appeal arc being referred to as plaintiffs and defendant as were arrayed before the trial court
(2.)A suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of title, as according to them an area measuring 6 kanal out of Khasra No.336 which was converted into Khasra No. 1074 during settlement, was in their ownership and possession aiongwith other co -owners. The total area of Khasra No.336 is 28 kanal 2 marla which is situated in Tika Matholi Mauza Madoli, Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that as per Jamabandi for the year 1971 -72, the suit land has been shown in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs. But during the settlement operation in the month of June/July, 1982, defendant is stated to have encroached upon an area measuring 6 kanal out of the aforesaid Khasra number. As such the necessity of filing the suit against the said defendant. Julfi Ram and Kalu Ram were arrayed as defendants No.2 and 3 who died during the pendency of the suit in the trial court and their legal representatives were added as 2(a) to 2(f) of Julfi Ram and 3(A) to 3(e) of Kalu, who are respondents No.6 to 16 in the present appeal. The interest of these respondents -defendants is identical to that of the plaintiff, because they could not join as plaintiffs so have been arrayed as proforma defendants in the suit.
(3.)This suit was contested and resisted by defendant No. 1 Chuha Ram, who pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, the court had no jurisdiction as also the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. Tenancy was claimed by defendant No. l over the suit land and in this background, it was further pleaded that after commencement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, he has become owner of the suit land. In this view of the matter, plea of his being an cncroachee over the suit land was denied. Parties went to trial on the following issues:


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