LACHHO Vs. BAKSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Paragraph 32 of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, 1948, against the decree and judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra, Camp at Chamba, affirming the decree and judgment passed by the learned Senior Sub -Judge, Chamba.

(2.) The appellant was defendant No. 1 in the suit whereas proforma respondents 2 to 4 were defendants 2 to 4 respectively, in the suit. The parties to the appeal would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants respectively hereinafter. Now the facts of the case may be briefly stated. The plaintiff Bakshi Ram had filed a suit against the defendants for possession of land measuring 12 bighas and 13 biswas as detailed in the plaint, situate at Mohal Dhar Kolian, Pargana Nagali, Tehsil Bhatiat. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 4 was the owner of the land in dispute and the plaintiff had been a tenant thereof. The plaintiff had prepared a part of the land for showing maize crop therein but the defendants 1 to 3 on 23rd of May, 1965 illegally trespassed into the land and cultivated maize therein, whereas they interfered with the possession of the plaintiff in Banjar land by letting loose their cattle therein. It was also contended by the plaintiff that when he obtained a copy of Jamabandi in respect of the land in dispute it was discovered that defendant No. 4 Shri Kansh, in order to dispossess the plaintiff, had collusively sold the land to defendant No. 1. It was also averred by the plaintiff that the defendants 1 to 3 had no right to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff in the land in dispute. On the contrary it was contended by defendants 1 to 3 that defendant No. 4 was the owner of the land, but for the last about two years he had sold the land to defendant No. 1 and since that time the defendant No. 1 became its owner. The defendants 1 to 3 further pleaded that the plaintiff was not a tenant of the land and that no forcible possession, as alleged, was taken from him. Their further plea was that defendant No. 1 who is father of defendants 2 and 3 had been in continuous possession of the land for the last 10/12 years. The said defendants completely denied the possession of the plaintiff in the land or being its tenant.

(3.) After recording the evidence of the parties the learned Senior Sub -Judge, Chamba, by his judgment and decree dated 2nd of August, 1968 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Kangra. The learned District Judge after examining the entire evidence on record and hearing the parties dismissed the appeal of defendant No. 1 on 13th March, 1970, with costs and affirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. The appellant who was defendant No. 1 in the trial court preferred this second appeal in the Delhi High Court (Himachal Bench) at Simla on 2nd of June, 1970. It is really sad that the appeal remained pending for such a long time.