SANT RAM Vs. PURAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 7 -S/13 of 1987, the appellants/defendants (here -after referred to as the appellant) have preferred a regular second appeal which is pending disposal after admission. These two petitions (CMP. (M) Nos. 148 and 149 of 1999) have been moved in the said appeal.

(2.) The relevant and material facts for the purpose of present discussion are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration that he is a co -sharer/co -owner of the land measuring 14 bighas being 1/4th share of land comprising Khewat Khatauni Nos. 77/86 and 76/85, more specifically detailed in para 1 of the plaint and that the revenue entries inconsistent with the rights of the plaintiff are wrong, illegal, invalid, void, fictitious and nonest and as such inoperative on his rights to remain a co -sharer in possession to the extent of his share and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession over the suit land in any manner. In the said suit as many as 21 defendants were impleaded. Out of them the appellants and respondent No. 2 to 10 were impleaded as defendants and the remaining respondents herein were impleaded as proforma defendants. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he has no dispute with proforma respondents out of whom the performs respondent No. 11 to 13 and 16 to 18 have the rights identical to those of the plaintiff and proforma respondent No. 14 and 15 are transferees from proforma respondent No. 11 and 12. Thus, he has claimed the relief against the appellants/defendants and respondents No. 2 to 10.

(3.) Written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff was filed on behalf of the contesting defendants. However, proforma respondents No. 11 to 18 have, admittedly, not contested the claim of the plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed by the learned trial Judge vide judgment dated 28 -11 -1996. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan by the impugned judgment. Hence the said appeal which was admitted for hearing on 4 -9 -1998.