PURAN CHAND Vs. MELA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff (hereafter referred to as plaintiff) against the judgment and decree dated November 1, 1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff instituted a suit praying for grant of a decree of permanent injunction restraining the original defendant Dharam Singh (since deceased and now represented by his legal representative, the present respondents and here -after referred to as the defendants) from interfering in possession of land owned by the plaintiff comprising Khata No. 8, Khatauni No. 12, Khasra No. 47/8 measuring 7 Bighas 10 Biswas, situate in Mauza Rajban, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (here -after referred to as the suit land) himself or through his relatives or servants and in the alternative, a prayer for granting decree for possesion was made in the event of the defendants dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land during the pendency of the suit. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint, is that he is owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff resides at Paonta Sahib and manages the cultivation of the suit land from Paonta. Thus, taking undue advantage of his periodical absence, the defendant interfered in his possession by letting loose their cattle or removing the crop from the suit land. The defendant on being requested to desist from their unlawful acts threatened with dire consequences and declared that they would occupy the land. On October 25, 1989 the defendant wanted to forcibly oust the plaintiff from the suit land but his attempts of forcible occupation were foiled but he caused loss of Rs.500/ - to the plaintiff. The defendant, however, persisted in his unlawful threats. The suit land is stated to be mortgaged with the State Bank of India which was originally impleaded as defendant No.2 but no relief against the said Bank was prayed for. Hence the suit seeking relief against the defendants.

(3.) The suit was contested. The defendants in their written statement raised the preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable in the present form, the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, that the plaintiff, not being the owner of the suit land, has no locus standi to institute the suit, that the defendants are non -occupancy tenants of the suit land, hence the plaintiff has no right, title or interest therein and that the plaintiff is not in possession of even an inch of the suit land and is, therefore, not entitled for the relief claimed. On merits, it has been claimed that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the suit land nor has any right, title or interest therein. It is claimed that the defendants are Gair Mouroosi tenants on payment of one -forth Gala Batai to its original owner Devi Singh since 1958 and since then they are in the cultivating possession of the suit land. The defendant Dharam Singh (deceased) was an old man of 90 years, therefore, the allegations of attempts to take forcible possession of the suit land have been denied and it is contended that since the land is in possession of the defendants, therefore, there is no question of forcible dispossession.