OM PARKASH Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Shyam Lal filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.1994 In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.1995. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 3 and 4 of its judgment, are as under :- "3. Shorn of unnecessary verbiage the case of Sham Lal plaintiff is that he has alleged himself in cultivating possession of the suit land as tenant gairmuasi since 1981, but the defendant has no concern with the suit land and he is bent upon dispossessing the plaintiff. So with these averments, suit was instituted. 4. Defendant/Nanak contested the suit inter alia on the grounds of maintainability, locus standi, collusion of the plaintiff with the previous owners namely Brij Mohan, and Smt. Kampawati, it is also pleaded that previously Brij Mohan and Kampawati, son and widow of Lal Chand, were owners in possession of the land in dispute and were big landlords. Defendant Nanak was an ejected tenant. In the year 1978, the suit land was allotted to the defendant as the suit land before 1978 had vested in the Haryana State. Brij Mohan Kampawati got instituted civil suit from Kusum Lata etc. against the defendant and some other persons. But those suits were dismissed upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. Then defendant moved an application to the S.D.O. (Civil) Collector Agrarian Jagadhri, for getting the possession of the suit land, consequently the suit land was allotted to the defendant. It is also pleaded that symbolic possession was delivered to the defendant on 25.12.90 as some crops were standing on the suit land. It is denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as tenant. The suit land vested in the State of Haryana in the year 1974, so its previous owner namely Brij Mohan and Kampawati had no right to create any tenancy over the suit land. The revenue entries made in the name of the plaintiff are illegal, void and factually wrong and the same are not binding upon the rights of the defendant. It is also submitted that the plaintiff is already out of possession and his suit as such merits dismissal with special costs."

(3.) WHETHER the defendant is entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC ? OPD