LAWS(P&H)-1996-8-205

RAJINDER SINGH Vs. MEWA SINGH

Decided On August 19, 1996
RAJINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
MEWA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for getting a declaration that mutation No. 95 dated 10.8.1968 was illegal and ultra vires to the extent that the Tatima of the land purchased by the plaintiff and the defendant should be corrected to show that the defendant purchased the portion mark 'L' in the site plan attached to the plaint. With respect I would say that the plaint in this case is very poorly drafted, and it requires a lot of exercise to spell out the case which the plaintiff wanted to put forth. By liberal construction to the pleadings, it can be said that the contention of the plaintiff was that revenue record which he calls 'Tatima' was wrongly prepared and consequently the mutation entry No. 95 was "illegal and ultra vires". He further wants to say that he should be shown as owner of the piece of land as shown at point 'N' in the plan attached with the plaint.

(2.) THE claim made by the plaintiff came to be disputed by the defendant by filing the written statement. He contended that the portion mark 'N' did not belong to the plaintiff.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant brought to my attention Exhibits P-1 and P-2 which are the sale deeds of the respective parties. Ex. P-1 dated 2.6.1967 is the sale deed in the favour of the plaintiff Sewa Singh. Ex. P-2 dated 1.6.1967 is the sale deed in favour of defendant Mewa Singh. In both these sale deeds Khasra No. 115(18-2) is mentioned as land out of which, a piece of land was carved out and sold to these parties. The only question, therefore, is which of the pieces out of these two pieces thus sold belongs to whom. The piece of land thus sold to each of the parties is almost identical in size i.e. about 8 'Biswas'. The plaintiff claims that the piece of land sold to him is situated to the southern portion of Khasra No. 115; and the land sold to defendant was situated to the northern end of Khasra No. 115. The sale deeds Ex. P-1 and P-2 which pertain to the sale of the respective land is another instance of poor drafting. In Ex. P-1 boundaries of the land thus sold are not at all indicated. Therefore, it does not render any help to fix the identity precisely with reference to its location. Similar is the case with respect to Ex. P-2. However, the trial Court found that in Ex. P-2, while describing the land sold to the defendant, it is mentioned that the sold land is towards the boundary of village of Gopalpur. The evidence on record shows that Gopalpur is situated towards the north of Khasra No. 115. But in my opinion, mere existence of the boundary of a village somewhere towards the north of the land, by itself, would not be enough to conclude the controversy. It may be mentioned that to the north of Khasra No. 115 there is Khasra No. 116. It is, therefore, obvious that the existence of village Gopalpur is not enough to fix the boundary.