REVTI DEVI WIFE OF SHRI MOHAN SINGH Vs. BALA RAM SON OF SH. SANJU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgement, decree dated 19.1.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 40/2000 affirming the judgement and decree dated 22.6.2000 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Karsog in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1998. The facts in brief are that appellant had filed a suit for declaration and injunction regarding land comprised in khasra No. 20, measuring 3 -3 -7 big has situated in Mohal Behal, Tehsil Karsog. It has been alleged that suit land has been recorded in the ownership and possession of the parties in the revenue record. The further case of the appellant is that she only purchased the suit land from Jindu proforma respondent No. 3 in December 1970, but mutation No. 12 dated 25.12.1970 has been wrongly attested in the name of respondents No. 1 and 2 also. The appellant paid the total sale consideration to Jindu. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are not in possession of the suit land and revenue entries showing respondents No.1 and 2 as owners to the extent of 2/3rd share are wrong, illegal and are liable to be declared as null and void. The respondents No. 1 and 2 on the basis of wrong entries are threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the appellant. It has been alleged that proforma respondents have been recorded as co -sharers in the suit land. They are not owners of the suit land and therefore, they have also been impleaded in the suit but no relief has been prayed against them. On these allegations, the suit was filed.

(2.) THE suit was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing written statement. In the written statement, preliminary objections of maintainability, non -joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, limitation and cause of action have been taken. On merits, it has been stated that suit land was purchased by the appellant and respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly from Jindu in December 1970 and mutation to this effect was attested. The sale consideration was also paid jointly by the appellant and respondents No. 1 and 2. The appellants and respondents No. 1 and 2 are joint owners in possession of the suit land. The claim of the appellant was denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) WHETHER the suit is not maintainable in the present form? -OPD.