BUDHI RAM Vs. SUNITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 19.12.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1994 affirming judgment, decree dated 26.2.1994 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 92/1 of 1990.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Budhi Ram, appellant, Ram Dittu proforma respondent No.4 and deceased Dila Ram were brothers and were joint owners of the land more specifically detailed in the plaint. It has been alleged that in the year 1969 partition took place and they started living separately. Dila Ram died on 3.7.1989 and his estate was inherited by Dev Raj predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1(a) to 1(e) and respondents No.2 and 3 vide mutations No.125 and 574 attested on 17.10.1989. Dev Raj, Des Raj and Smt.Suharoo were identified before Assistant Collector, IInd Grade at the time of attestation of mutation as the only legal representatives of Dila Ram. Smt. Suharoo was identified as widow of Dila Ram whereas Dev Raj and Des Raj were identified sons of Dila Ram. THE appellant and proforma respondent No.4 were not present at the time of attestation of mutation.

(3.) IT is also the case of the appellant that Dev Raj, Des Raj and Smt. Suharoo were not the heirs of Dila Ram and mutations of inheritance regarding the estate of deceased Dila Ram were wrongly attested in their favour. Smt. Suharoo is the widow of Nihala. Dev Raj, Des Raj are not the sons of Dila Ram. The appellant and proforma respondent No.4 are the only heirs of Dila Ram and entitled to inherit the property of Dila Ram after his death. The entry of possession of deceased Dila Ram on Khasra No. 145 in revenue record was wrong and not binding on appellant. The Khasra No. 145 was jointly owned by appellant, deceased Dila Ram and proforma respondent No.4. The appellant had constructed a house over khasra No. 145 which was demolished by Dev Raj, Des Raj and Smt. Suharoo in the year 1990 illegally, who are under legal obligation to reconstruct the house, restore its original position and handover the possession to appellant. IT has also been stated that in case it is not possible then a direction may be given to pay due and proper compensation to appellant. The relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has also been prayed.