ASHOK KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' Second Appeal, wherein, they have questioned the validity of the judgment and decree dtd. 7/5/2019, as rendered by the 1st Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2001, Rajkumars v. Haveli Ram Malhotra, whereby, the First Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents has been allowed and, as a consequence thereto, the judgment and decree dtd. 26/7/2001, as rendered by the Civil Judge, Senior Division/FTC, 7th, Dehradun, dismissing the Suit No. 60 of 1998, Rajkumars v. Haveli Ram Malhotra as well as the judgment with regard to the decreeing of the counter claim preferred by the defendants/appellants under Order 8 Rule 6-A of the C.P.C. has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court and as a consequence thereto, the suit of plaintiffs/respondents has been decreed.

(2.) Precisely, the case as pleaded before the Court below was in relation to the property, more particularly, described as property, lying in Khasra No. 49, having an area of 0.94 hectares situated in Village Harawala Dehradun, over which, admittedly, as per the plaint case itself, one late Mr. Sahbuddin was the recorded bhumidhar, recorded in Shreni-1 Ka of the Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950.

(3.) It is an admitted case that the plaintiff as he then was, i.e. late Shabuddin, he had executed a registered sale deed on 29/1/1966, by virtue of which, late Mr. Shabuddin, had conveyed a part of the land constituting of 1 bigha, i.e. equivalent to 0.77 hectares of land in favour of the predecessors of the defendants/appellants, Mr. Haveli Ram. It is the case of the defendants/appellants that after the aforesaid purchase made by them on 29/1/1966, late Mr. Haveli Ram had constructed his house, Aata Chaki and a Dhann Machine, which have been more particularly described by figure 'ABCDE' in the plaint map. The principal plaintiff/respondent met with sad demise on 4/11/1996 and, as a consequence of his death, remaining piece of land, i.e. Khasra No. 49, having an area of 0.24 hectares, remained vested with the heirs of late Shahbuddin, who are the defendant/appellants, herein, which has been shown in the plaint map by figure 'ABFG'.