NAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dtd. 22/12/2017 passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants against the judgment and decree dtd. 30/7/2014 passed by the lower court has been allowed and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case are, that the appellant-plaintiff herein filed a suit for mandatory injunction, by claiming himself to be owner in possession of the agricultural land, as detailed in para 1 of the plaint. It is averred that the appellant-plaintiff purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed bearing vasika No.8380 dtd. 11/10/1994 for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,44,800.00 from its previous owners i.e. Rohtash and others as well as from its Bhondedars i.e. Kuria son of Parbhati, Shyam Lal, Miachand son of Dulia, who were recorded in the revenue records at that particular year i.e. 1994. The appellant-plaintiff claimed that physical and vacant possession of the suit land was delivered to him at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. Thereafter, the appellant- plaintiff handed over a copy of the sale deed to the then Halqua Patwari for sanctioning of mutation on the basis of sale deed in his favour along with requisite fee, however, after some time, he came to know that revenue record did not reflect his name in respect of the suit land and the same stood in the name of vendors of the appellant-plaintiff. It is alleged that ultimately on 5/10/2009, the Patwari flatly refused to sanction the mutation in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. In their written statement, the respondents-defendants submitted that the appellant-plaintiff purchased some piece of land, as alleged, from various vendors, but the said vendors did not have any specific shares in the suit land and their shares in the suit land were not fixed, as the suit land is shamlat patti land. It is also averred that each and every resident of particular village have the right in the suit land, which was left for the common purposes, so the purchase of the suit land is illegal, arbitrary and against the law. It is claimed that since the appellant-plaintiff is not having any specified share in the suit land, so the mutation cannot be sanctioned without fixing the share of an individual.

(3.) From the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the lower court and thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the lower court decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. Aggrieved, the respondents-defendants filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court, which came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower court was set aside and the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.