BIMLA DEVI Vs. PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appellant, Shri Roshan Lal and respondent, Shri Panjku Ram herein, who were plaintiff and defendant, respectively, before the learned trial Court and shall hereinafter be referred to as such, died during pendency of the appeal before this Court and are represented by their legal representatives (L.Rs.), Smt. Bimla Devi and others and Shri Parkash and another, respectively.

(2.) This appeal by the plaintiff through L.Rs. is against the judgment and decree, dated 23.11.2000, of the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P., whereby the appeal filed by the defendant was accepted and the suit for grant of a decree for declaration with consequential relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction filed by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs throughout.

(3.) Briefly stated the dispute between the parties concerns the land comprised of Khewat/Khatauni No. 7/9, Khasra No. 90, measuring 0 -03 -31 hectare, situate in village Rihri, illaqua Hatli, Sub Tehsil Baldwara, District Mandi, H.P (the suit land). The plaintiff averred that the suit land was exchanged between the parties on 8.1.1993. Whereas, the suit land was given by the defendant to the plaintiff, the latter gave land measuring 0 -03 -48 hectare denoted by khasra No. 107/1, forming part of the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 34/38/39 min, Khasra No. 107, situate in the aforesaid village, to the former by way of exchange. Thereafter, the parties are owners in possession of the respective lands. In order to establish the exchange, the plaintiff relied upon Rapat Rojnamcha (daily diary report), dated 8.1.1983 and attached a copy thereof with the plaint. The plaintiff further averred that in the year 1983, he constructed a house, Gobar Gas plant, kitchen and khalwara and raised orchard on a part of the suit land and the remainder is being used by him as courtyard. After exchange the plaintiff is in ˜peaceful, hostile, naked and uninterrupted possession of the suit land. It was lastly averred that on 18.12.1990, the defendant started causing unlawful and unwarranted interference with the suit land by destroying the orchard and the potato crop as also by planning to raise construction on a part thereof for which he had collected stones and other material without any right, title and interest, compelling the plaintiff to file the suit.