KARAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs/appellants (hereafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated December 15, 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur upholding the judgment and decree dated January 10, 1986 passed by the learned Sub -Judge, Ghumarwin dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Sohan, now represented by his legal representatives appellants No. 1 and 2 and Ram Singh, instituted a suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession of land comprising Khata Khatauni No. 260/347 min, Khasra No. 2127, measuring 1 bigha, 3 biswas, situate in village Sindhiar, Pargana Sunhani, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur (hereafter referred to as the suit land). The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit land had been in their open, peaceful and hostile possession for the last 40 years at the time of institution of the suit and they were recorded in possession of the suit land in the revenue papers prior to 1960 which entries were subsequently changed without their ejectment from the suit land. It is further their case that being in possession, the plaintiffs applied for grant of suit land as Nautor to them which was granted by the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin but such grant was subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner whose order was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner. Since the revenue officials are now threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land, hence the present suit.

(3.) The defendant/respondent State of H.P. (hereafter referred to as defendant No. 1) resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and took preliminary objections in the written statement that the suit was not maintainable in the present form, that the suit was liable to be dismissed for want of service of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit and that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct. On merits, it was averred that the plaintiffs had never been in possession of the suit land which is owned and possessed by the replying defendant and the entries in the revenue papers are also in its favour. The plaintiffs, however, tried to encroach upon a portion of the suit land five -six years before the institution of the suit and were ejected there from pursuant to the proceedings initiated under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land. It is, however, admitted that the plaintiffs had applied for grant of suit land to them as Nautor. Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs has been denied.