JAG MOHAN SINGH Vs. VIKAS VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Civil Appeal No. 47-N/13 of 2003.

(2.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs' for convenience sake) instituted a civil suit No. 53/1 of 2002 in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Sirmaur District Nahan for injunction restraining the defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' for convenience sake) from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants over the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 93/219, Khasra No. 1002/767, Pattai Dadahu, measuring 1-3-15 bighas situated in village Chuli Dadahu, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur. It was further alleged that the defendant was a complete stranger to the land and the land was situated at village Dadahu on road side and, therefore, was a valuable piece of land. On 20.3.2002, defendant tried to raise construction on the suit land. Defendant filed a detailed written statement to the plaint filed by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded by him that he has purchased two biswas of land from one Smt. Renu Bala in the year 2000 vide sale deed No. 67 of 2000. The suit land had been purchased by Smt. Renu Bala from Sukdi in the year 1993 vide sale deed No. 70 of 1993. Tatima was prepared. The land sold was situated on the road side near K.N.D.C. road in front of P.W.D. Rest House. Smt. Renu Bala after purchasing the land fixed barbed wire around the plot. When defendant purchased the land from Smt. Renu Bala, he constructed a shed thereon and inducted one Raj Kumar as tenant. It has also been alleged that a mistake had occurred in the tatima in which land sold was shown as Khasra No. 766/377 whereas actual khasra No. was 767/377. Due to this mentioning of wrong khasra number in the tatima, error also crept in the sale deed and subsequent revenue record. Defendant also filed a counter-claim for a decree of rectification of sale deed No. 70 of 1993 and 67 of 2000 on 7.6.2002 and also prayed for injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with his possession. The correction application was made by him to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Dadahu and the application was pending when the written statement-cum-counter claim was filed. It was also pleaded by the defendant that property so purchased by him presently being described as Khasra No. 1002/767/377/1 and had wrongly been mentioned by Khasra No. 999/766 in the sale deed which Smt. Renu Bala made in his favour. Plaintiffs did not file any reply to the counter-claim preferred by the defendant. The trial court dismissed the civil suit No. 53/1 of 2002. However, the counter-claim of the defendant that he is owner in possession of two biswas of land bearing khasra No. 1002/767/377/1 by virtue of sale deed from Smt. Renu Bala to him and as shown in the tatima Ex. D-3 (though it has been wrongly described as Khasra No. 766/377/1, which should be read as 767/377/1) was decreed with costs. Plaintiffs were restrained from interfering with his possession. Revenue Record was directed to be corrected and the defendant was directed to be shown as owner of the land bearing khasra No. 767/377/1 as shown in tatima Ex. D-3, which was directed to be form part of decree. Plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2003 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on 31.3.2005. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) Mr. Harmeet Singh has strenuously argued that both the courts below have erred in law by dismissing the suit and allowing the counter-claim preferred by the defendant.