BADAR DEEN Vs. CHUHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 2.12.1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Chamba, whereby the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1990 passed by the learned sub Judge, Chamba dismissing the suit of the appellants and proforma respondent No.5 for possession of land measuring 7 bighas 3 biswas comprising Khasra Nos. 145, ] 46,201,238,251,308,311,318,322 and338 Khata Khatauni No.8/13 situate, Distt. Chamba (hereafter referred to as the suit land) had been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the appellants and proforma respondent No.5 instituted a suit for possession of the suit land against the contesting respondent Chuhru (hereafter referred to as the respondent). As per the plaint, case of the appellants is that they were owners in possession of the land measuring 13 bighas 3 biswas comprising khata khatauni Nos. 8/13 and 14 in the said village along with proforma respondents and they never inducted the defendant as a tenant over the said land. However, in the absence of the appellants, without their knowledge and in collusion with the revenue officials, the respondent got himself recorded as non occupancy tenant in respect of the suit land and on the basis of these erroneous entries, took unlawful possession of the land in suit in October 1985. Since the respondent has no right to remain in possession of the suit land, therefore, the suit for possession was instituted by the appellants.

(3.) The respondent contested the claim of the appellants and proforma respondent No.5. In the written statement, he claimed that the suit land was sold to him by the appellants and plaintiff respondent No.5 vide a written document dated 3.6.1982 for consideration in the sum of Rs.8800/ -. At the time . f the said sale dated 3.6.1982, the respondent was put in possession of the suit land. He has, therefore, denied taking unlawful possession of the suit land.