TILKA Vs. MOHKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur in CA No. 49 -CA/13 of 1998. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ˜the plaintiff for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration in respect of the land bearing khata khatauni No. 183 min/285, khasra No. 484/30 min measuring 6 Biswas situate at Poanta Shib, District Sirmaur (hereinafter referred to as ˜the suit land).

(2.) IT is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff forcibly occupied the suit land since it was adjacent to the land under the tenancy of the plaintiff in the year 1970. He had been coming in possession of it openly, peacefully, continuously and without any interruption from the respondents -defendants (hereinafter referred to as ˜the defendants for convenience sake). His possession was recorded in the jamabandis for the year 1974 -75 and 1979 -80. According to him, he had become owner of the land by way of adverse possession. It is further stated that the revenue entries showing the defendants as owners of the suit land were wrong and illegal. Defendant No.1 filed application in the year 1980 in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sirmaur for partition. He filed objections to the same. Assistant Collector 1stGrade, Sirmaur framed mode of partition on 16.10.1982. According to the plaintiff, Assistant Collector 1st Grade had no jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the recorded possession of the plaintiff over the suit land by way of various jamabandis.

(3.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.1.1999. It was admitted on 19.4.1999 on the following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether on the point of acquiring ownership by way of adverse possession by plaintiff of the suit land, the learned District Judge has misconstrued, misinterpreted Ex.PW -1/A Jamabandi 1974 -75, Ex.PW -1/B Jamabandi 1979 -80, Ext. PW -1/C Khasra girdawari, Ext. Dy, Jamabandi 1996 -97, Ext. DW -4/B report of Field Kanungo? 2. Whether in partition proceedings under Chapter 9 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953, Assistant Collector, 1st Grade is competent to delete the name of a person recorded in possession in jamabandies and thus whether Ex. P -1 order dated 16.10.1982 Ex.DW -4/A order dated 16.10.1986, Ex. DW -4/J order dated 17.11.86 passed by learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade are wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction and these can be challenged in civil court? 3. Whether suit filed by plaintiff is within limitation? - Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua has vehemently argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are not sustainable. According to her, plaintiff has become owner by way of adverse possession. She then contended that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade had no jurisdiction to pass orders on the basis of which mode of partition was prepared. Mr. Rajnish K. Lal has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected and interlinked, therefore, the same are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. The plaintiff has appeared as PW -1.