KRISHAN LAL Vs. KUMARI ANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Shimla dated October 1, 1997. Facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are:

(2.) Raja Ram, father of the minor plaintiffs and husband of plaintiff Leela Devi and defendant Krishan Lal were sons of Balak Ram. All three of them were joint owners in possession of the property subject matter of dispute. This property was redeemed by Raja Ram and Krishan Lai vide Mutation No.946 attested on June, 1974. As Balak Ram did not contribute for the redemption of the mortgage, therefore, the two brothers, Krishan Lal and Raja Ram possessed the property as Subrogees. On the death of Raja Ram, plaintiffs stepped in his shoes and were joint owners in possession with the defendant.

(3.) Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering in their right of joint usufruct of the suit property as joint owners in possession. According to the plaintiffs the defendant tried to oust the plaintiffs from joint possession of the suit property and tried to appropriate the apple crop on the suit property to himself alone.