TULSI Vs. BESAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1994, passed by the then learned District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul-Spiti Districts at Mandi in, Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1990. While dismissing the appeal of the defendant, the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Sarkaghat in Civil Suit No. 110-1/88 dated 30-4-1990, has been upheld. By means of said decree, trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff, permanently restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of plaintiff on the suit land. While passing the decree, trial Court had further ordered that the possession of the plaintiff be deemed on behalf of other co-sharers as well as the decree shall enure for their benefit too.

(2.) Suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming that he jointly owns the land comprised in Khewat No. 53 min/115 min. Khasra No. 88, measuring 0-8-43 hectare, situate in Village Kalkhar, Illaqa Bara, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi along with other co-sharers. But he is in exclusive possession thereof, without having any right, title or interest, defendant has started interfering with his possession and destroying the crop as well threatening to remove the trees. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant is threatening to unsettle his settled possession, therefore, necessity of filing the suit.

(3.) This suit was contested and resisted by the defendant who inter alia pleaded that he has purchased the suit land for Rupees 500/- on 6-8-1968 from Dhanna co-sharer and since then he continues to be in its exclusive possession. Defendant also alleged that he has planted fruit bearing trees on the suit land, as such, there was no occasion for his interfering with the plaintiff's possession when he himself (defendant) is in actual possession of the same. Regarding revenue entries defendant alleged that he has approached the Assisant Collector, 2nd Grade, Baldwara for the correction thereof. And factum of his possession has been verified by the subordinate revenue staff on verification. Plaintiff has filed the suit only thereafter because taking undue advantage of such wrong revenue entries, he intended to take benefit by throwing out the defendant. Plea of adverse possession was also set up as his title has matured into ownership for over a statutory period of 12 years. Suit being not maintainable; also being bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and plaintiff having no cause of action were the other pleas while repudiating the claim of the plaintiff as set up in the plaint. In replication pleas of the defendant which were contrary to the averments made in the plaint were denied and facts urged in the plaint were reiterated.