LUXMI DUTT Vs. JAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 18.03.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 20 -NS/13 of 1994/92, affirming judgment, decree dated 09.09.1992 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Kandaghat, in Case No. 42/1 of 1986. Some of the parties have died, their legal representatives have been brought on record. In this judgment, the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants restraining them from interfering in the land, more specifically, described in the plaint which for brevity sake hereinafter referred to as 'Suit Land '. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they along with proforma defendants are owners in possession of the suit land. The defendants No.1 to 19A were tenants of specific land in village Salihari and they have acquired proprietary rights. The entries showing State of Himachal Pradesh as owner of the suit land and in possession of 'Bashindgan Deh ' are wrong, the plaintiffs are not bound by the same. The defendants have no right in the suit land on the basis of wrong revenue entries. Only plaintiffs have title over the suit land which is situated in village Salihari. It has been stated that a decree in favour of plaintiffs and against the State of Himachal Pradesh declaring plaintiffs as owners in possession of the suit land has already been passed by learned District Judge, Solan, in Civil Appeal No. 19 -S/13 of 1978 decided on 28.02.1984, titled Bala The defendants are threatening to interfere in the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land on the basis of wrong revenue entries. On these averments, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

(3.) IT has been alleged that plaintiffs had earlier filed similar suit against contesting defendants which was dismissed on 25.09.1978. The present suit is neither competent nor maintainable. The plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, they are not entitled to discretionary relief of injunction. The contesting defendants have denied existence of cause of action. They have also taken the plea of limitation. The proforma defendants did not contest the suit and they were proceeded ex -parte by the trial Court on 20.04.1987. The replication was filed by the plaintiffs and they reiterated their stand.