LAWS(HPH)-2001-9-7

GOPAL KRISHAN Vs. JAGTAMBA PARSAD

Decided On September 18, 2001
GOPAL KRISHAN Appellant
V/S
JAGTAMBA PARSAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of reversal recorded by the Additional District Judge, Kullu dated July 20, 1993.

(2.) It appears, Jagtamba Parsad and Partap Chand, (succeeded by Durgi Devi), filed a suit for declaration that they were the owners in possession of half share of the land measuring 2.4 bighas comprised in Khasra number 562 as per jamabandi for the year 1971 -72 of Phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja of Tehsil and District Kullu. They also prayed for an injunction, as a consequential relief, restraining contesting defendants Gopal Krishan and Ram Krishan, from interfering with the suit land in any manner. In the alternative, it was prayed that if defendants No. 1 and 2 forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and plaintiffs are found to be out of possession, then a decree for possession may be granted to them in respect of suit land or portion thereof, of which they may be dispossessed.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiffs and proforma defendants were the joint owners in possession of the land in dispute in which plaintiffs had half share while the other half was owned and possessed by the proforma defendants. As the plaintiffs and proforma defendants were living in the District of Kangra, therefore, they employed defendant Gopal Krishan to look after their land on a monthly salary of rupees 150. The defendants, taking advantage of the fact that plaintiffs and proforma defendants were living away from Kullu, applied for the correction of revenue entries to the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade, Kullu alleging that they were tenants of the land. The application, however, was dismissed. According to the plaintiffs, contesting defendants were never inducted as tenants. The contesting defendants, in connivance with the revenue officials, got an entry made in the girdawari of kharif 1979 to the effect "Kashat Mutnaza Hai" and on the basis of this wrong revenue entry, have started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs without any right, title and interest. Plaintiffs fear their dispossession.