SITA RAM Vs. KULDEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 26.6.2001, passed by the Learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide which he affirmed the judgment and decree, dated 10.1.2000, passed by the Learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Baijnath, dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff for declaration.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant (hereinafter also referred to as the Plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration as against the original Defendant Roshan Lal, now represented by the present Respondents, (hereinafter also referred to as the Defendant). It was alleged by the Plaintiff that the land in suit comprised in Khasra No. 709 measuring 0 -01 -01 hectares is recorded in the ownership of State of H.P. and in possession of Sita Ram Plaintiff, through one Thakur Dass, as tenant Gair Marusi. It was alleged that the land in Khasra No. 709/1 measuring 0 -00 -34 hectares has been mutated in favour of the Defendant vide which proprietary rights have been conferred upon him of this portion of land by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It was alleged that the Defendant was a tenant of the building under the Plaintiff and a case regarding ejectment of the Defendant and recovery of rent was filed by the Plaintiff. During the litigation, the matter was compromised vide which the Defendant agreed to vacate the building and it was agreed by the Plaintiff to give the land in Khasra No. 709/1 for construction of a shop on a yearly rent of Rs. 12/ -. The said agreement was later on not admitted by the Defendant and the agreement was rejected by the Hon 'ble High Court. The said compromise has No. value in the eyes of law. The Defendant got the entries changed in the revenue record on the basis of the said compromise and later on the proprietary rights were conferred upon him on 5.12.1988 and mutation was also attested in his favour. It was alleged that since the compromise had No. legal value, therefore, the change of entries, order and mutation have No. force, hence the suit for declaration filed by the Plaintiff.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the Learned trial Court framed as many as 8 issues. The main issues were issues No. 1 to 3, which may be reproduced as under: