SURINDER SINGH Vs. SITAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class (I). Kangra at Dharamshala on March 20. 1998 in Civil Suit No.313 of 1998 and confirmed by the Court of District Judge, kangra at Dharamshala on March 31. 1999 in Civil Appeal No.51 -K/XIII -1998. By the said decree, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The dismissal of the suit has been assailed by the present appellants.

(2.) For appreciating the controversy raised in present appeal, few relevant facts may now be stated; The appellants were original plaintiffs and respondents were original defendants and they will be referred to as such in this judgment. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants.Originally, the suit was filed by one Chamaru claiming to be owner of j the property bearing Khata No.31 Khatauni No. 105. Khasra No.567 admeasuring 0 -40 -22 Hectares situated at Mohal Parei. Mouza Nerti. Tehsil and District Kangra. During the pendency of the suit Chamaru died and the present appellants/plaintiffs, who claimed to have acquired proprietary rights over the suit land left by deceased Chamaru came to be substituted as heirs and legal representatives of Chamaru.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that he was the owner and was cultivating the suit land as a tenant of Dina Nath. defendant No. 1. against payment of Galla Batti. Defendant No.l Dina Nath. in collusion with defendant No.2 Munshi Ram. executed a mortgage deed in favour of defendant No.2 and mutation was attested. It was. however, the say of the plaintiff that the possession was never I parted with by him and he was not ejected from the suit land. He continued to cultivate the land all throughout. In 1988. however, the defendants started interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff was. therefore, constrained to file a suit restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. It was further case of the plaintiff that since he was in possession of the suit land as tenant, in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act1), he became the owner and all rights, title and interests of the land owner got extinghished and with effect from the appointed day vested in the tenant free from all encumbrances. The appointed day was February 21. 1974. Thus, the plaintiff Chamaru became the owner of the suit land. Thereafter, the defendants had no right, title or interest therein. It was. therefore, prayed that the suit deserved to be decreed.