HARI NATH Vs. RAGHU NATH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-7-3
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on July 23,1997

HARI NATH Appellant
VERSUS
RAGHU NATH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of a common judgment passed by the District Judge, Chamba in two civil appeals filed by the respective appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Chamba.
(2.)Ram Lal alias Kaka Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 8 was the original plaintiff in civil suit No. 61 of 1984 wherein other defendants were Union of India, State of Himachal Pradesh, Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation and Custodian Department), Himachal Pradesh, Collector Chamba (Custodian Department), Hari Nath and Jhanda Ram. In this judgment parties are being referred to as 'Plaintiffs' and 'Defendants'. RSA No. 371 of 1990 has been filed by defendant No. 6, Hari Nath and RSA No. 387 of 1990 has been filed by Union of India and four others.
(3.)Plaintiff Ram Lal who originally filed the suit died during the pendency of the appeal filed by Hari Nath as well as by Union of India and others before the District Judge, Chamba and respondents Nos. 1 to 8 were added as his legal representatives in the appeal. Plaintiff was granted evacuee property bearing No. 116 situate at Chamba town as far back in 1955 by the Managing Officer, Custodian Property, Jalandhar. Pursuant to such grant conveyance deed was executed on the basis whereof mutation No. 1210 dated 27-4-1968 in respect of said property No. 116 came to be attested in his favour and thus, an area of 468.7 sq. ft. comprised in Khasra Nos. 6964, 6965, 6966, 6967, 6968 and 6977, Kittas 6, (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') came to be attested in his favour. Case of the plaintiff was that he continued to be owner in possession of the entire suit land, part of it has been built upon by him. It appears that Hari Nath, defendant applied for review of this mutation, as according to him, plaintiff had been conveyed in area measuring 281 sq. yards. This application was turned down.


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