HARIA Vs. BHINDRU
LAWS(HPH)-1949-8-2
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on August 01,1949

HARIA Appellant
VERSUS
Bhindru Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of the Chief Judicial Officer, Simla Hill States at Kasumpti, dated 31st July 1948, reversing a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Thaog State, dated 3lst July 1947, and thereby dismissing the suit.
(2.) THIS is a dispute between three proprietors holding estates respectively in villages, Shariana and Batog in Theog State and Moond in Sirmur State, now comprised in Himachal Pradesh. Each of the landed proprietors of Shariana and Moond maintained that he was the absolute owner to the exclusion of the rest. But the proprietors of Batog estate, save a solitary exception, maintained that all these three estates were joint property. Bali Ram of village Batog defendant 11 claimed that the Batog estate had fallen to the share of defendants 4 to 11 and have been mutually partitioned amongst them without any reference to the plaintiff or to defendants 1 to 3. The case of the plaintiff was, in substance, that he was the owner of the Shariana estate, covering an area of about twenty -seven bighas and seventeen bighas, that there was a partition between the ancestors of the parties long ago, the ancestors had divided their landed properties in three villages, Shariana, Batog and Moond, into three shares. The ancestor of defendants 1 to 3 took the Moond estate in Sirmur and those of defendants 4 to 11 became owner of Batog estate. Accordingly, each branch has remained in possession of its share since the partition. The plaintiff and his father before him have been paying the land revenue of the Shariana property that fell to their share. The case of the plaintiff further was that the revenue papers had long remained uncorrected and showad shares of the other defendants. Upon the basis of the entry of the revenue papers relating to Shariana land, the defendants commenced a proceeding before the revenue authorities for partition. An objection being raised by the plaintiff, the revenue authorities referred him to the civil Court. Hence, this suit for a declaration that the entries in the revenue record were incorrect and that he was the owner of the Shariana estate and that the defendants had no right, title or interest in it.
(3.) THE respondents are distant kinsmen of the appellant.;


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