- (1.) Gehru through his wife and next friend (Smt. Devku) filed the instant suit in forma-pauperis seeking the following reliefs: (a) for possession of orchard measuring 21 bighas 7 biswas as per entries in the Jamabandi for the years 1971-72 contained in Khata Khatonies No. 740/1565 to 1569; (b) for recovery of Rs. 50,000 on account of mesne-profits for the use and occupation of land described in (a) for the last fifteen years; (c) for mandatory injunction directing Defendants No. 2 to 6 to pay rent of the disputed land to the Plaintiff; AND in the alternative, for recovery of Rs. 1,10,000 (Rs. 60,000) on account of sale price of land plus (Rs. 50,000) on account of interest thereupon for the last eight years.
(2.) The case of the Plaintiff is that Sh. Gehru was deaf and dumb person since his birth and possessing low intelligence and he suffered disability at all material times. The disputed property referred to above belonged to the Plaintiff. On 28-4-1965, Plaintiff had executed a general power of attorney in favour of his wife Smt. Sobhi who in pursuance thereof sold the land aforesaid to Defendants No. 11 and 12 'benami' through Defendant No. 1 for ostensible consideration of Rs. 31,000 It is alleged that on account of legal disability suffered by the Plaintiff the sale in question was void ab initio and it did not create any interest in favour of Defendants No. 11, 12 or Defendant No. 1 or anybody else. At the material time Defendant No. 12 was posted as Deputy Commissioner Kullu and it was through his influence that Smt. Sobhi executed the sale deed referred to above Further allegation is that vendees knew the mental incapacity of the Plaintiff and also that the sale affected in their favour was void. Despite that Defendant No. 1 sold 9 bighas of land in favour of Defendant No. 7 to 12 for a consideration of Rs. 60,000 sometimes in the year 1971 which was also void transaction creating no interest in their favour. It is also asserted that Defendants No. 2 to 6 were the tenants of the disputed land and after the impugned sale they started payment of rent to Defendants No. 1,11 and 12 instead of the Plaintiff. As such Plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 50,000 on account of rent for the last 15 years from the Defendants. Also Defendant No. 1 started ejectment proceedings against Defendant No. 2 to 6 by claiming himself to be the owner of the disputed land through Defendant No. 11, his general attorney without having any right, title or interest.
(3.) Defendant No. 11 and 12 did not claim ownership nor possession of the disputed land nor any other interest therein through their written statement separately filed by them. Defendants No. 7 to 10 claimed to be bona fide purchasers of the suit land. However, they raised preliminary objections regarding the locus standi, limitation. They also contended that Plaintiff did not suffer any legal disability as alleged. Further according to them as Defendants No. 2 to 6 remained tenants over the disputed land, its proprietary rights were contended to have automatically vested in them under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and thus the jurisdiction of this Court has also been challenged.;