ASHOK KUMAR CHAUHAN Vs. KANWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in C.A. 109 -S/13 of 1998, whereby the decree passed by Sub -Judge, 1st Class, Court No. 3, Additional Charge Court No. 2, Rohru in civil suit No. 49 -1 of 1993 dated 13.5.1998 has been upheld and the appeal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) With a view to properly appreciate what was argued at the time of hearing of this appeal contents of the plaint are extracted hereinbelow: - "1. That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of land comprised in khata khatauni 148/259 old khasra No. 805 and new khasra No. 1061 measuring 2 bighas 11 biswas situated at Chak Gawas Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, which property was purchased by the plaintiff, when he was minor, through his father defendant No.3 from Sh. Het Ram son of Sh. Lakhu vide deed of sale dated 27.10.1975 duly registered in the office of the Sub -Registrar, Rohru on the same date for a consideration of Rs. 500. The plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property at the time of registration of the aforesaid deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff through his father. As submitted, at that time the plaintiff was a minor and as such the transaction of the sale etc. was done by the father of the plaintiff namely, defendant No. 3. The property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff with the funds of the plaintiff which had received on account of gifts in cash on various occasions from his relatives. The date of birth of the plaintiff is 3.3.1969. Needless to say with the sale of the said property coupled with delivery of possession, the said Sh. Het Ram ceased to have any right, title or interest in the said land and the plaintiff became its owner in possession.

(3.) That the possession of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 over the suit property is unlawful. They have no right to possess the property as the lawful owner thereof is the plaintiff and he alone is entitled to possess the same at any rate the plaintiff was unlawfully dispossessed therefrom in September/October, 1984 because of the plaintiff had been put in possession of the said property of Sh. Het Ram at the time of sale in the year, 1975 in favour of the plaintiff and continued to be in lawful possession thereof till September/October, 1984. If at all, the plaintiff could only be dispossessed from the suit land in due process of law. The defendant Nos.l and 2 do not have any right or title to possess the said property or at any rate better right or title than the plaintiff to the suit property. The plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property on the basis of title or at any rate on the basis of illegal dispossession by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in September/ October, 1984.