RAM SWAROOP Vs. MANDIR THAKRAN KALYAN RAI RESPONDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-11-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 8-11-1995 passed by the learned Sub-Judge (2), Nurpur, appellant-defendant (hereafter referred to as 'the defendant') has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (hereafter referred as 'the plaintiff') instituted a suit for declaration that the land comprising Khasra Nos. 1172 to 1176 and 1254 measuring 242-99 square metres, situate in Up Muhal Niazpur, Mauza Nurpur Khas, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, is owned and possessed by it and the order dated 10-1-1989 passed by the Settlement Officer, Kangra is illegal, null and void and not binding on it and for possession of the suit land by demolition of the structure standing on the suit land.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint, is that the suit land was let out to Munu Ram on 3-4-1954 on annual rent of Rs. 18.00 by Nanak Chand, the then owner thereof. Subsequently, the said owner donated the suit land to the plaintiff-Mandir and thereafter said Munu Ram started paying the rent to Shanta Nand, the then Mohatmin of Mandir. Munu Ram constructed a tin-roof shed on a portion of the suit land and also installed a rice shelling machine, one Atta Chakki and one cotton grinding machine. The defendant also started working with Munu Ram, therefore, along with Munu Ram he was also accepted as a tenant on the suit land. After the death of Munu, the defendant paid rent of the suit land to the present Mohatmeen of the Mandir, namely, Des Raj for two years i.e. 1986-87 and 1987-88. The defendant, however, in collusion with the revenue settlement staff obtained an order dated 10-1-1989 passed by the Settlement Officer in his favour whereby an entry showing the defendant as owner of the suit land was ordered to be made. The order dated 10-1-1989 was passed at the back of the plaintiff who was never made a party to the proceedings and is a result of fraud and mis-representation and thus null and void. After the passing of the order dated 10-1-1989, the defendant asserted title over the suit land and thus forfeited his right of tenancy and is therefore, liable to be evicted from the suit land and the plaintiff is entitled for possession thereof after demolition of the construction raised thereon.