BALDEV SINGH Vs. JHAODU
LAWS(HPH)-1997-6-11
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on June 12,1997

BALDEV SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
JHAODU AND ORS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DISTRICT BANK V. WEBB [REFERRED]
SMT. DEV LATA V. ALAM ETC. [REFERRED]
PRITHVI CHAND AND ORS. V. CHHAJU [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is the plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1989 of the learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, affirming the judgment and decree dated 26-4-1989 of the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class (2), Paonta Sahib.
(2.)Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these. One Mangta, father of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 4 and 5 was the tenant in respect of land measuring 1 bigha 15 biswas comprising of Khastra No. 414/1 of village Shampur Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, hereinafterrefered to as the land in dispute. The said Mangta died sometime in the year 1957-58. His tenancy qua the land in dispute came to be inherited by the plaintiff and Performa defendants No. 4 and 5, in equal shares under the owner Bhupender Singh. The land in dispute came to be vested in the State under section 27 of the H.P. Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) At the time of death of the above named Mangta, the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 4 and 5 were minors. Taking undue advantage of their minority, the defendants 1 to 3 in connivance with the revenue field staff in 1966 got themselves recorded as tenants of the land in dispute by getting the names of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 4 and 5 deleted Inspite of such change in the revenue entries, the plaintiff and proforma defendants continued to remain in possession of the land in dispute till April, 1986 when they came to be forcibly dispossessed therefrom. A suit for possession of the land in dispute accordingly came to be filed by the Plaintiff on 24-3-1987.
(3.)Defendants 1 to 3 while resisting the suit denied the tenancy of Mangta It was pleaded that their father Roda was in possession of the land in dispute under the owner Shri Bhupender Singh. The revenue entries in favour of Mangta and thereafter. The plaintiff and proforma defendants were wrong, which came to be corrected They also denied the minority of the plaintiff and proforma defendants at the relevant time.


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