PRITAM CHAND Vs. RAJINDER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common judgment, decree dated 21.6.1997 passed by learned District Judge, Solan Camp at Nalagarh in Civil Appeal No. 60 -NL/13 of 1995 and Civil Appeal No. 61 -NL/13 of 1995, arising out of judgment, decree dated 25.9.1995 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Nalagarh in Civil No.165/1 of 1990 has been assailed in the second appeal. The learned Sub Judge has decreed the suit, both the defendants had filed separate appeals which were dismissed by learned District Judge on 21.6.1997

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Devi Lal predecessor of respondents No.1(a) to 1(c) and respondent No.2 had filed a suit for possession against appellant and proforma respondent No.3 regarding land comprised in khewat/khatauni No.10 min/17 min, khasra Nos. 1234/138 measuring 3 biswas and khasra No.188 measuring 8 biswas, kitas 2, total measuring 11 biswas situated at village Mallpur, Hadbast No.189, pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan. A prayer for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per crop for illegal occupation of the suit land was also claimed. It is the case of the respondents No. 1(a) to 1(c) and respondent No. 2 that they are owners of the suit land. The appellant and proforma respondent No. 3 have no right over the suit land. They dispossessed predecessor of respondents No. 1(a) to 1(c) and respondent No. 2 on 10.4.1989. They were requested to restore the possession and when they did not pay any heed to the request of predecessor of respondents No. 1(a) to 1(c) and respondent No. 2 then the suit was filed.

(3.) THE proforma respondent No. 3 has claimed the ownership on khasra No. 1234/138, measuring 3 biswas. It was alleged that this land was earlier owned and possessed by Harbhajan Singh and after his death about 70 years ago Maghu father of proforma respondent No. 3 came into possession. The proforma respondent No. 3 is in possession of khasra No. 1234/138 to the knowledge of all concerned after the death of Maghu father of proforma respondent No. 3. In replication the predecessor -in -interest of respondents No. 1(a) to 1(c) and respondent No. 2 denied the claim of appellant and proforma respondent No. 3.