STATE OF H.P. Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common, Judgment, as these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment dated 13.12.1985, passed by the District Judge, Una, whereby the appeal preferred by Shri Manmohan Singh was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 10th December, 1979 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Una was set aside and as a consequence thereof, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, preferred by ' Manmohan Singh, was decreed.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff, as pleaded before the trial Court, had been that Bakhshish Singh had been recorded as owner in possession of 70 kanals of land described in the plaint as 'hissedar' in the revenue record and out of the said land, he sold the suit land measuring 37 kanals 18 marlas, detailed in the plaint, in favour of Manmohan Singh, Plaintiff, through a registered sale deed dated 3rd February, 1970 for a consideration of Rs. 700/ - and also was alleged to have handed over the occupation of the said land and in this behalf, mutation No. 2925 dated 20th January, 1971 was sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiff. According to the Plaintiff, he came to occupy the suit land as owner, and Defendants were making threats to take forcible possession of the suit land without any right whatsoever, hence the suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction pertaining to the suit land was filed.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3, who happened to be S/Sh. Milkhi, Dharam Singh and Tarsem Singh, contested the suit and pleaded in the written statement that Bakhshish Singh had absolutely no title or interest in the suit land and he was not at all entitled to sell the same. They further pleaded that they and their ancestors have been in occupation of the suit land for more than 100 years and have acquired ownership rights by adverse possession it was also pleaded that the entries, if any, in the name of the Plaintiff and Shri Bakhshish Singh in the revenue record, have been made unauthorisedly in the occupation column. According to these Defendants, the remaining Defendants 4 to 7 had nothing to do with the suit property and as such, the suit was alleged to be bad for mis -joinder of parties. The other averments made in the plaint have been denied and an additional plea has been taken in the written statement by these three Defendants that the state Government was recorded as owner in the revenue papers, therefore, the State of H.P. was a necessary party.