UDHO Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan dated September 30, 1993 is under challenge in this second appeal. In order to appreciate the controversy, facts in brief for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, may be noticed thus.

(2.) Udho, resident of village Shampur-Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, hereinafter referred to as the 'Plaintiff, filed a suit before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Paonta Sahib for declaration that he is. owner of the land comprised in Khasra No. 794/568 measuring 2 bighas 2 biswas situated in village Shampur Gorkhuwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, as per Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 and subsequent sale by Defendant No. 1, Ram Kishan in favour of Mangta, Defendant No. 2 of a portion of this land measuring 12 biswas denoted by Khasra No. 794/568/1, measuring 12 biswas, hereinafter referred to as 'suit land', as shown in Tatima, is illegal and Plaintiff is not bound by such sale.

(3.) The case of the Plaintiff appears to be that the land was purchased by the Plaintiff from Defendant No. 1 on May 21, 1968 for a consideration of rupees 1,850/-. Initially, the transaction of the sale was in respect of a field, the compact plot area of which was tentatively estimated as 2 bighas for a consideration of rupees 1,800/- but, on actual measurement, the area of the field was found to be 2 bighas 2 biswas and accordingly, the consideration was raised to rupees 1,850/- which was paid by the Plaintiff on May 21, 1968. The possession of the land was delivered to the Plaintiff and a report was duly made by the Defendant No. 1, Shri Ram Kishan, to the Patwari of the area for recording the transaction of the sale. By inadvertence, the area sold was erroneously recorded as 2 bighas instead of 2 bighas 2 hiswas, though, the jamabandi correctly records the area as 2 bighas 2 biswas in possession of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 1 undertook to execute the sale deed and/or have the sale attested from the Revenue Officer in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff being illiterate person, trusted Defendant No. 1. However, the sale deed was not executed though the Plaintiff became owner of the suit land' by way of oral sale on payment of consideration of rupees 1,850/-. The Plaintiff maintains that if the sale is not proved, then the possession of the Plaintiff being open, hostile, continuous and to the knowledge of the Defendant Ram Kishan since May 21, 1968 has matured into title by way of adverse possession. Defendant Ram Kishan sold a portion of this land measuring 12 biswas, as denoted by Khasra No. 794/568/1 to Defendant No. 2 Shri Mangta, by a registered sale deed. It is pleaded that the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the sale of portion of this land to Defendant No. 2, continues to be in possession of the entire land measuring 2 bighas 2 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 794/568. In the circumstances, claims Plaintiff, Defendant No. 2 does not derive any title from the registered sale deed, of 12 biswas of land, in his favour. It is in this context, the Plaintiff prays for declaration, as noticed earlier.