KARAM SINGH Vs. BOHRA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under S.100 CPC lays challenge to judgment and decree dated 25.7.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh (camp at Bilaspur), in Civil Appeal No. 60-13 of 2006, affirming judgment and decree dated 28.2.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Case No. 95/1 of 2004/96, titled Bhotha (deceased) through legal representatives and others vs. Bohra Ram and others, whereby suit having been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter, 'plaintiffs') for injunction came to be dismissed.

(2.) Precisely the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/defendants (hereinafter, 'defendants') late Bohra and Anant Ram restraining him from causing any interference in the land measuring 9-16 Bigha comprised of Khasra No. 96, Khewat Khatauni No. 90/166 situate in Village Ghumarwin, Pargana Tiun, District Bilaspur, (hereinafter, 'suit land'). Plaintiffs averred in the plaint that the suit land has been recorded in the joint ownership of the plaintiffs and defendants but entries in the name of late Bohra Ram showing him to be owner-in-possession are wrong, as per Jamabandi for the years 1990-91. Plaintiffs alleged that their predecessors-ininterest filed an application under Ss. 11 and 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter, 'Act'), 1953, for the conferment of proprietary rights before Compensation Officer, Ghumarwin, in which defendant No.2 and his brothers compromised the matter with the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, whereby predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs agreed to leave possession of land measuring 2 Bigha 10 Biswa comprised of Khasra Nos. 96/1 and 96/2 On the basis of aforesaid settlement, Tatima was prepared and statements were recorded. Plaintiffs averred that in view of aforesaid compromise, application was decided by Compensation Officer and proprietary rights of plaintiffs were admitted by defendant No.2 and his brothers. Predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs were kept tenant in possession of 65/96 share recorded in the ownership of Smt Sartaju, who was a widow. Plaintiffs claimed in the plaint that since their predecessors-in-interest being poor and illiterate could not engage any lawyer, defendant No. 2 taking undue advantage of their poverty and ignorance, got statements in the order recorded against the compromise. Plaintiffs also alleged that the Compensation Officer signed the order without going through the statements of compromise and passed an illegal order on 6.5.1966, which is without jurisdiction.

(3.) Plaintiffs averred that the Compensation Officer ordered to enter Smt. Sartaju as owner qua 65/196 share whereas, plaintiffs had only left specific portion of Khasra Nos. 96/1 and 96/2 measuring 2 Bigha 10 Biswa to defendant No.2 etc. and no land was left to Smt. Sartaju. Plaintiffs averred that their predecessors-in-interest believed the impugned order passed by Compensation Officer but in fact, the same was passed against the compromise. Plaintiffs alleged that they were not aware of wrong and illegal order and they being tenants-inpossession have acquired proprietary rights under the Act and are the owners of the suit land. In the aforesaid background, plaintiffs prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering in their possession, in the alternative, plaintiffs claimed that if plaintiffs are not considered to be owners of suit land, they have become owners by way of adverse possession.