PREM SINGH Vs. RAM DHARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 14.10.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby appeal filed by defendant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated 04.09.1985 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Rohtak, has been allowed and suit filed by plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') has been dismissed.

(2.) Prem Singh-plaintiff (appellant herein) filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging that he had been in cultivating possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.1376, measuring 12 biswas pukhta, situated in Mauza Rohtak, as an occupancy tenant without payment of any lagaan to the owners of the land. Therefore, he has become owner of the suit land as per the provisions of occupancy law. It was further alleged that defendants claiming themselves to be owners of the suit land by way of purchase, had threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land without due course of law. Hence, the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, defendants (respondents) filed written statement, wherein it has been pleaded that plaintiff was neither occupancy tenant nor in possession of Khasra No.1376. He had not occupied any ownership rights over the suit land. It was further submitted that the defendants had purchased the suit land from Bishan Sarup and others proprietors with shamlat rights for a consideration of Rs.3420/- vide registered sale deed dated 30.11.1972. After purchase, they had become owners of the suit land. They were bonafide purchasers for consideration of the suit land without notice of the alleged rights of the plaintiff. Thereafter, they had received compensation in respect of three biswas of land, out of the suit land, which acquired in 1972-73. Earlier, the suit land was banjar kadim. After purchase, the defendants had started irrigating the suit land through a tubewell installed inKhasra No.1377. They had also constructed a godown , measuring 125' x 25' in a portion of the suit land and the same was on lease with the irrigation authorities. They had spent a huge amount in construction of godown, installation of tubewell etc. All other allegations made in the plaint were denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.