LAWS(HPH)-2010-1-153

RAM DITTU Vs. STATE OF H P

Decided On January 07, 2010
RAM DITTU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No 130 of 1988 dated 7.2.1998. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for convenience sake has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No.399 measuring 19.5 Bighas situated in village Rohin (Dohre), Pargana Sariun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. by way Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment No. of adverse possession and the ejectment order passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ghumarwin on 24.9.1976 is illegal. He has also alleged that the land in question is coming in his possession since the time of his grand father as encroacher and the possession was 120 years old. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for convenience sake. The defendant has denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has got himself incorporated as non-occupancy tenant in the revenue record in connivance with the consolidation staff but entries were subsequently rectified in the year 1965 by the order of the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the replication to the written statement filed by the defendant. The learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Ghumarwin decreed the suit on 21.5.1988. The defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal on 7.2.1998 and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Ghumarwin were set aside. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.2.1998. It was admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether the first Appellate Court has correctly read and inferred revenue record Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-15 to come to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove the ingredients of adverse possession, as claimed by him.

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel for the appellant supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge. According to him, the learned First Appellate Court has mis-construed the oral and documentary evidence. According to him, the plaintiff has proved his title by way of adverse possession. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. According to him, the plaintiff has failed to prove the basic ingredients of adverse possession. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and record carefully.