Decided on April 04,1997

Vidya Devi And Ors. Appellant
UMA DEVI Respondents


Surinder Sarup, J. - (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of Sh. Surjit Singh District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal Spiti Districts, Camp at Kullu dated 14 -1 -1991 whereby the suit of the Plaintiff -Respondent Uma Devi has been decreed to the effect that the Defendants -Appellants have been restrained from interfering with the Plaintiff's possession over the land measuring 4 -10 0 Bigha situated in Phati Soil Kothi Barshai, Tehsil and District Kullu, which had been granted to her under the description which has been given with plan attached thereto i. e. the suit land. By the same judgment the cross objections filed by the Defendant -Appellants have also been dismissed. It may be mentioned here that the Appellant was aggrieved against the judgment and decree in the Court of Shri J. L. Gapta, Sub Judge, Ist Class, Kullu dated 2 -11 -1987 dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff Respondent.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the Plaintiff -Respondents filed the suit giving rise to this appeal for the issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction against the Defendants Appellants on the pleadings that the suit land fully described in the plaint, and also as per details given in the impugned judgment and decree, had been in her possession since the year 197/,. She made an application to the S. D. O. (C) Kullu for allotting the said land to her under the Nautor Rules. However, her application was dismissed by the S. D. O. (C) Kullu and then she filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu and the fate of that appeal was same. Then she filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Kullu and he vide order dated 21 -5 -1980 set aside the orders of the S. D. O. (C) Kullu and the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu and directed that the suit land be given to her under the Nautor Rules In consequence of the same Patta dated 26 -11 -1981 was issued in her favour and symbolic possession was also delivered to her because she was also in physical possession
The Defendants -Appellants in their written statement resisted the suit by alleging that vide Patte No. 1778 DC dated 8 8 -1971 had allotted 3 -10 -0 bighas of land to their predecessor Chuni Lal. This was allotted by the revenue authorities and that the said land included a portion of the suit land to the extent of 2 Bighas. They further pleaded that they had planted apple trees on 3.10 -0 Bighas land which had been allotted to their predecessor Chuni Lal. Ever since, possession had been given to them. They also raised certain preliminary objections which were also taken in the written statement to the effect that the suit was not within limitation and that the Plaintiff has no cause of action, : that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction and was out of possession and as such, not entitled to she relief of injunction and, also she was estopped by her acts and conduct from seeking the relief.

(3.)ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the Plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute, as alleged? OPP.

(2) Whether the Defendants are interfering in the possession of the Plaintiff over the land in dispute and the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as alleged? OPP.

(3) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD.

(4) Whether no cause of action has accrued to the Plaintiff against the Defendants as alleged? OPD.

(5) Whether the suit is not competent in the present from as alleged in preliminary objection No, 4? OPD.

(6) Whether the Plaintiff is precluded from filing the suit by her act and conduct as alleged in the preliminary objection No. 3?


(7) Whether the land in dispute has been granted in nautor to the Defendants on 8 -8 -1971 as alleged? If so its effect? OPD.

(8) Relief.

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