NARAIN SINGH Vs. SMT. SATYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff has come in second appeal against judgment, decree passed by learned District Judge, Shimla on 1.1.2000 in Civil Appeal No. 86 -S/13 of 1998, affirming judgment, decree dated 1.4.1998 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No. 3, additional charge of Court No. 2, Rohru in Civil Suit No. 56 -1 of 1993.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Appellant had filed a suit for declaration and possession regarding land comprised in khata No. 329/547min, khasra No. 1677 measuring 30 -25 Sq. Deci Metres, situate in NAC, Rohru, District Shimla. The further case of the Appellant is that his father Jethu got the proprietary rights of the suit land and had become owner in possession thereof on 3.8.1975 vide mutation No. 8678. The Appellant inherited the suit land and became owner in possession of the suit land after the death of his father Jethu. It has been alleged that Jethu had constructed a shed/kitchen over the suit land which was given to Respondent No. 1 as tenant, who in collusion with the revenue officials got the entries of "Davedar Bai" over the suit land. The suit land was not transferable by way of sale, gift, exchange etc. for a period of 10 years, therefore, the claim of Respondent No. 1 that she had purchased the suit land from the father of the Appellant is of no consequence. The Respondent No. 1 had threatened to dismantle the kitchen situate on the suit land. In these circumstances, the suit was filed.

(3.) THE Respondents No. 2 to 5 were proceeded exparte. The Respondent No. 6 vide order dated 29.11.1995 was impleaded as Defendant. The suit was contested by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 6 by filing separate written statements. The Respondent No. 1 in the written statement took preliminary objections of non -joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, maintainability, limitation, valuation and estoppel. On merits, it has been pleaded that Jethu was owner in possession of land comprised in khasra No. 1917/1374/1217/858/405, measuring 0 -06 biswas. The conferment of proprietary rights in favour of Jethu was not denied. It has been alleged that Respondent No. 1 is in possession of land in dispute since 1977, later on land in dispute to the extent, 1 biswa was sold in favour of husband of Respondent No. 1. Thereafter Respondent No. 1 and her husband had constructed a shed and a kitchen over the land in dispute. The revenue record showing contrary is wrong. The Respondent No. 1 is an exclusive owner and is entitled to retain possession of the suit land. The Respondent No. 1 has claimed adverse possession over the suit land. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to declare the revenue entries was also denied. The Respondent No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the suit.