HOTAM RAM Vs. BEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.4.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No.56 of 1994 dismissing their appeal against the order dated 19.10.1994 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahul and Spiti, exercising the powers of sub Judge 1st Class, Kullu.

(2.) One Bhaini Devi instituted a suit against Bir Singh, respondent No. 1 herein and one Jalam, predecessor in interest of respondents 2 to 6 who have been impleaded as respondents in his place. In the said suit, the plaintiff had prayed for a decree for declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession of land comprising khasra No.706 measuring 12 biswas, khata khatauni Nos. 176/336 situate in Phati Mahol, Kothi Khokan Teh. and District, Kullu with, consequential, relief of injunction. It was averred in the plaint that said Jalam had sold that suit land to her for consideration in the sum of Rs.650/ - vide registered sale deed dated 9.6.1965 and the possession was also delivered to her on the same date. However, the concerned revenue officer rejected the mutation on the basis of said sale illegally and in her absence. It is also averred in the plaint that said Bhaini Dev had made improvements on the suit land after the purchase after spending a sum of Rs.4000/ -. However respondent Bir Singh got a sale deed of the suit land executed in his favour from said Jalam whereas such a sale deed could not have been executed. After the execution of the sale deed, respondent No. 1 and said Jalam started threatening said Bhaini Devi to take over the forcible possession of the suit land. Hence the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by respondent No. l and the predecessor in interest of the remaining respondents. Respondent No. l in his written statement, raised the preliminary objections that the plaintiff was out of possession, therefore, the suit was not competent in the form in which it has been laid, that the suit was time barred and that respondent No. l was in adverse possession of the suit land. On merits, it was claimed that the suit land is a nautor and could not have been sold without the permission of the State whereas respondent No. l is in possession thereof as a purchaser without notice and the suit land never remained under the cultivation of the plaintiff and, thus, the claims of the plaintiff was denied. The deceased Jalam who is now represented by respondents 2 to 6, in his written statement, raised the preliminary objection that the suit in the present form was not maintainable. On merits, it was claimed that being nautor, he was not competent to transfer the suit land nor the plaintiff came to possess the suit land. It is further averred that the suit land has been sold by him to respondent No. l for consideration in the sum of Rs.4000/ - and now respondent No. l is in possession thereof. He has denied ownership, possession and interference over the suit land; It has, however, been claimed that the plaintiff had fradulently obtained a gift deed from deceased defendat Jalam Singh. Thus, Jalam also denied the claim of the plaintiff as a whole.