HARI RAM Vs. PANO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge Una, HP, passed in Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1992/RBT of 1993 dated 27.12.1995.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the adjuciation of the Second Appeal are that the plaintiff, respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ˜plaintiffs for the convenience sake) had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellent -defendants (hereinafter referred as ˜dependents for convenience sake). The case set up by the plaintiffs in the suit was that the land in question measuring 10 Kanal 11 Marls comprising Khasra Nos. 51, 52, 54, 297 and 301 was in possession of Maghar as tenant on payment of rent under the owner for the last many years. Shri Maghar dies on 26.10.1980 and he had become owner of the land by virtue of H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act w.e.f. appointed day i.e. 30.10.1975. Since Maghar dies without any make issue and was succeeded by his daughters i.e. plaintiffs and Smt Stya Devi as owner in possession. The defendants No. 1 and 2 on the basis of this statement made by Smt. Satya Devi without their knowledge, procured an order from C.O. Una on 17.12.1985 in their favour. The defendants No. 1 and 2 had pleaded that the land in question was in ˜Hissadari - possession of the owners and it was never in possession of Maghar in any capacity at any time. In other words, it was pleaded that Maghar had not become owner of the land. They have also placed reliance upon the Gift Deed made in favour of Smt. Satya Devi by Maghar.

(3.) The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties had framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff alongwith defendant No. 3 are owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP 1 -A. Whether Maghar was tenant of suit land and had become its owner as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD