DURGA PARSHAD Vs. MANGAT RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs, was decreed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate court in para 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that claiming themselves to be in cultivating possession of the disputed land in equal share as Dohlidar, as detailed and described in para No.1 of the plaint, the plaintiff Mangat Ram etc. had instituted suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant with the averments that prior to them, their predecessor in interest Har Chand was in cultivating possession of the suit land as Dohlidar and after his death, the plaintiffs are in possession of the same in the same capacity. The defendant who is clever person, in connivance with the revenue officials, has got his name incorporated in the Khasra Girdawari for the year 1980 as Gair Marusi regarding the suit land and has also got the entry of Rs. 125.00 Chakota Sal Tamam incorporated whereas in fact, he has never cultivated the suit land. No entry has been made by the Patwari in his roj namcha regarding the change of cultivation and the plaintiffs are not bound by the entries appearing in the name of the defendant. By virtue of the present suit, the plaintiffs have challenged the legality and validity of these entries and as the defendant having no right, title or interest in the same has been threatening to dispossess them forcibly, so this necessitated the institution of the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, the defendant, in his separate statement, have resisted the present suit on the grounds of maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, cause of action, concealment of the true facts and limitation etc. On merit, he has taken the stand that the plaintiffs have got no concern with the possession and cultivation of the suit land as he is in possession of the same as Gair Marusi for the payment of Rs. 125.00 as rent per annum. In Rabi season for the year 1999, he had cultivated the crop of Sarson in the land in question and now for Kharif 1999, he had prepared thesite plan for cultivation. Neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestor Har Chand had any concern with the cultivation and possession of the suit land nor they ever cultivated the suit land. The plea taken by the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit land as Dhohlidar is absolutely false and frivolous and under the garb of the same, they intend to take possession of the disputed land. The plaintiff have no right to challenge the entries appearing the revenue record in the name of the defendant qua the suit land which are perfectly legal and valid. They also prayed for dismissal of the suit.