ROSHAN LAL Vs. KAMALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was defendant in the learned trial Court, is in appeal against the judgment dated 1.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 22-S/13 of 2000, titled Shri Kamaljit Singh versus Shri Roshan Lal, whereby the judgment dated 18.5.2000 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 518/1 of 1994, titled Kamaljit Singh versus Roshan Lal, dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein as plaintiff for grant of a decree of declaration with consequential relief of possession and perpetual prohibitory injunction, has been reversed and the suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed for the relief of possession. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeal shall hereinafter be referred to by their status in the learned trial Court, that is, defendant and plaintiff, respectively.

(3.) Brief facts of the case may be stated thus. According to the plaintiff, he is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 418/712, Khasra No. 521, measuring 104 square meter, situate in Mauza Saproon, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. as per copy of Jamabandi for the year 1989-1990 (suit land). The defendant who has nothing to do with the suit land nor has any right, title or interest in the same, taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest in the recent settlement conducted during the year 1982-1983 had got the revenue entry in respect of the suit land changed in his favour in the column of possession. Such entry is not only wrong, illegal and superfluous but against the factual position on the spot. The defendant has never been in possession of the suit land. However, on the basis of the aforesaid entry, he started interference in the lawful ownership and peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It was further pleaded that though it was not admitted that the defendant is in possession of the suit land, yet in case the court came to the conclusion to the contrary, in that event, a decree for possession was also prayed for. A prayer for grant of a decree for perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land, causing any damage to the same and changing its nature in any manner, whatsoever, was also made. The plaintiff came to know about the aforesaid wrong entry in the revenue record in the last week of April, 1994. Thereafter, he requested the defendant many times to get the same corrected. The defendant had been promising and assuring to do the needful. However, lateron on 25.10.1994, he with an intent to grab the suit land refused to do so.